7.0 Conquest Changes

[Clonelimit]

So outside of contributing to your guilds total points tally ( There is ONLY the big guilds that win it each week )

What is the point of conquest?, come 7.0?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Clonelimit

[Clonelimit]

I am in two small guilds . (10 chars on each) Could you please explain why I would even want to do conquest at 7.0? Edited November 9, 2021 by Clonelimit

[Akushii]

So outside of contributing to your guilds total points tally ( There is ONLY the big guilds that win it each week )

What is the point of conquest?, come 7.0?

 

I'm actually not sure what the point of it is currently even. Like you said, it's usually the big guilds. On my server, it's the same 2-3 guilds that win every week and 2 of the guilds are sister guilds (one on pub, one on imp). As far as I know, most ppl that go hardcore on conquest right now (like finish 30-40 toons a week), simply do it for the credit. I know someone that has everything worked out and usually completes about 20 characters just on Tuesday. They just sell all the frameworks and mats and make a ton of money per week. Not to mention all the credit they rack up from the Heroics. I don't think this was the main purpose of conquest to begin with..?

 

I would love to see some more creativity behind the concept of conquest. Maybe have your personal conquest point be tied to some guild perks? Lets say if you earn 100K conquest, you get the Sprinter perk for the following week. Maybe have access to the 'fly-by' ability with a cooldown of 20 minutes in open world. I'm sure others can come up with more creative ideas.

[Blakinik]

Haven't seen this argument raised.

 

I'm a fan of the theory I call "Law of Unintended Consequences". Its something I joke about whenever the government interferes in the economy. Example - if you are vastly wealthy, you NEVER sell your equity investments unless they are in a tax shield like a Roth IRA since you are only taxed at sale, not on capital appreciation when you hold it. So the more people threaten to tax the rich, the more the rich find innovative ways to avoid paying taxes. Like simply "borrowing" against your assets and living off those proceeds and having yet another way to reduce whatever taxable income you might have with a tax shield from the interest expense.

 

All that said, I think the screwing with the credits (reducing the bountiful credits being rewarded) will cause the most annoying player to return. The Dreaded Gold Farmer.

 

Think about it - once they lock down credits, you don't think these gold farmers are sitting on billion of credits times many accounts? And you don't think some new player with more money than common sense is going to look for the easy way to jump to the top? Sure EA can stop a few but that is like organized crime - getting caught on occasion is the price of doing business. As long as someone wants the credits, there will be someone to sell them for real money. All that this is going to do is increase the rate the gold farmers are going to charge. As a result, welcome to the spam that we have been missing since its questionable if the rates they charge now are even worth selling the credits.

 

In the end, it will not do ANYTHING but keep the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few rich guilds and players unless that is exactly what they want too do. Issue isn't supply, it demand to remove the credits from circulation.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Blakinik

[BRKMSN]

Stripping CQ credit rewards could certainly help reduce the credit supply, but I don't believe that all credit rewards should be done away with because it unfairly penalizes new players and those that lack much of a credit balance because they only play intermittently. Instead of doing away with them for everybody, employ means testing and have whether or not a credit reward is granted is based upon a player's wealth between all their characters and legacy bank. Should this also be applied account wide? I don't know, but I definitely think it should apply to one's whole legacy on a server.

 

Just want to address this part of your reply. My personal opinion is that it would be stupid to penalize players for being successful at a portion of the game (credit management). Nerfing rewards at all is backwards thinking. Penalizing players for accumulating credits legitimately is even worse. All they should be focusing on is giving players something to spend the credits on that removes the credits from the game. It's not difficult. Unfortunately, they (the devs) ultimately choose the CM as the format for introducing desirable things. With everything that comes out on the CM, there's one more missed opportunity for credit sinks players would embrace.

 

From the developer standpoint, "inflation" is not really an issue. Real life game revenue is what matters. Unfortunately, players tend to gripe about things such as inflation and the devs have to give the impression they are doing something every once in a while.

[Pricia]

So outside of contributing to your guilds total points tally ( There is ONLY the big guilds that win it each week )

What is the point of conquest?, come 7.0?

 

I think it's the only way of getting gear fragments for the new gear upgrades.

 

I'm actually not sure what the point of it is currently even. Like you said, it's usually the big guilds. On my server, it's the same 2-3 guilds that win every week and 2 of the guilds are sister guilds (one on pub, one on imp). As far as I know, most ppl that go hardcore on conquest right now (like finish 30-40 toons a week), simply do it for the credit. I know someone that has everything worked out and usually completes about 20 characters just on Tuesday. They just sell all the frameworks and mats and make a ton of money per week. Not to mention all the credit they rack up from the Heroics. I don't think this was the main purpose of conquest to begin with..?

 

 

Are you talking about me? lol. Seriously though, I do CQ because... there's nothing else for me to do. And yeah, the credits are nice. But let's not forget that, for a while, I was actually getting upgrades from CQ cache and the guild CQ cache. Actually would have gotten more set pieces if they *gasp* actually dropped the right set for my spec. The only two BiS sets that drop are Tactician and Death Knell, the other classes get useless garbage, which shows that clearly the devs have no clue how their game works.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Pricia

[GojuSuzi]

As someone screwed over by this, I approve.

 

So. I and my friends made a small guild, then they all took a break. I have been solo levelling the guild with 4 characters. I barely play - since I finished the last GS, I have literally logged in, crafted some stuff, and logged off - and with usually under 30mins playtime per day, plus some skipped days, I can get a small invasion guild conquest done and all 4 personal conquests done, and usually a few more personal conquests for the alts on the other alignment. If there's an event on and I do it on each once during the week, I can upgrade to a medium target for the guild. The current system is less challenge than GS was, and that was hardly time-intensive.

 

I should not be able to treat personal CQ on multiple characters and soloing a guild CQ as a log-in reward exercise. I should need to step out and actually play. When doing a medium invasion, I can average over 100k per character anyway, so it's not challenging, it just requires leaving Fleet once a week each to do whatever event quest or a series of GSF or a set of Heroics or whatever. Even with individual rewards getting nerfed, it's not exactly a challenge to say "play this character for an hour once a week if you want it to make CQ".

 

No one likes getting less stuff, or being expected to put in more effort for the same reward. Obviously no one's going to like this. But it is fair, and makes sense.

[kimiko_tomiyama]

It is a shame really... there are several QoL improvements coming like the combat styles. I was actually excited for the first time in a good while.

 

Then I read this thread. Yep. I foresee a lot of login, collect the daily bonus, log outs coming. Conquest is getting smacked hard. I used to flip sides to work on it and developed a pattern to insure I could hit the small guild goal myself even if the rest of my small guilds were MIA a week. The goals we just different enough on Imp pub I could hit alts on both sides and get to the goals with 2-3 days of serious play and a couple of scattered hours in between. Yes I ran a lot of the same content, but the grind was tolerable because I could feel tangible reward.

 

The changes here will make my alt pathing impossible and the grind a yawn fest.. "Jump through this doggie hoop or you won't get gear." I gave up at the start of 6.0 My toons are in the best that you can get with tech fragments (308) because I didn't feel grinding the ops was worth the modest increase. This will solidify that position. I really don't care if it's 306, 324, or 3006 for that matter. It's just a matter of me having a level 50 comp or two to insure I can finish the story content without dying too much. "You won't be able to to do group content with that attitude." Sorry I lost my last reason to want group content in this game. I am here to hear (and tell) a story in Star Wars. As long as you have some, I'll be around to experience it. But raids and war zones aren't stories to me.

 

If anything, I'm inclined to actively avoid the stuff BioBeware is telling me I need to do. Yes I might play more initially. as I finish up the post Knights content on my alts. Then it's the 5 minute login till next content drop.

 

"Play your way." sure seems like "Play your way, but if it isn't the way we want then don't expect anything from us."

[Yezzan]

two words, the first one starts with "B" and the last one starts with "S"

 

This feels like no jab. no job. What are you doing Bioware?

[klizilii]

Crazy I didn't even know you get credits for completing individual conquest objectives... I have never paid attention.

 

The direct stuff suggested here all sounds great. I'm not sure what the implied stuff will end up becoming so I won't comment on that, but I think overall these changes around removing rewards from the conquest objectives and raising the cap to 100k are a good start.

[Talon_Sora]

That sucks that credits and XP will be removed from Conquest rewards, thanks to that I was able to add HK-51 to my team early (he cost over 1M credits to add to a character's team) and not stress about being the right level when continuing my adventure...

 

But if this is the main cause of why we are seeing insane prices on the Galactic Market (like 40M for an armor set), removing credits/XP from Conquest rewards might not be just a bad thing.

[BRKMSN]

But if this is the main cause of why we are seeing insane prices on the Galactic Market (like 40M for an armor set), removing credits/XP from Conquest rewards might not be just a bad thing.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the cause. Reducing the influx of game-generated credits will not cause GTN prices to fall at all. As long as the devs continue to not implement viable credit sinks, this type of so-called "fix" will only make it take longer to earn credits through game activity and for some players to afford the GTN items that will continue to rise in credit cost.

 

So the Devs might try to sound noble by "attacking inflation" by making the game less rewarding to players, but the only people that stand to gain from lower game credit generation is Bioware as people will feel more obligated to purchase Cartel Market items using Cartel Coins instead of credits. The people that already have tons of credits will continue to use them on the GTN. So Bioware should see a small increase in CC sales. Very noble of them.

[Stradlin]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the cause. Reducing the influx of game-generated credits will not cause GTN prices to fall at all.

 

Of course it has much to do with the cause. Nothing generates as much new credits to the game as fast as conquest. Curiously, this is true for two very different extremes.

Player A) Somebody is very casual, only plays few hours a week. Does maybe grand total of 10 missions, reaches personal and guild's conquest target on one character while at it.

Player B) Super hardcore conq farmer, reaches conq target o 30 chars each week.

For both players A and B, conquest rewards amount to majority of the credits they create to the world each week.

 

It is crazy BW just sat on their hands on this for 2 years or something. Nerfing it now slows inflation down, but it doesn't reduce it.

[Stradlin]

TLDR Weekly missions increase amount of conquest guilds earn, but they do not increase amount of credits generated. Making weeklies worse doesn't help with anything and only annoys people.

 

 

I hope they don't touch the varioius weekly conq objectives or how weekly missions work.

 

It is a wretched idea to make weeklies rotate between " active weeklies" and " inactive weeklies" somehow.

 

It is also a wretched idea to reset half completed weeklies each tuesday. Besides annoying people, these changes achieve very little. It seems so pointless and irrational: the 2 x increase to conq required and heavy nerf on credits earned sounds like enough.

 

Increasing individual conq required to 500k would be easier to understand than the discussed weekly nerf.

 

Don't make it more difficult or rare to complete weeklies! If absolutely necessary, make them less rewarding in conquest earned. Making mechanics of weeklies worse in very objective sense is a terrible decision that hurts and annoys people beyond all things conquest related.

 

Weeklies aren't even a big part of them problem. They all offer generous hauls of conquest..but all of it is

" dumb conquest", you can't distribute conq from a completed weekly across your legacy. By the time typical player completes their [weekly], it gives them, what, 100k conquest on top of ..say, 40k they already had. So they end up sitting on 140k conquest. Which isn't any more rewarding, in terms of credits etc, than sitting on 50k conquest.

 

Some objectives are " smart conquest". Planetary grind for example- If touring planetaries, you can with extremely high precision distribute conq haul you get quite evenly across all of your legacy. If you earn 200k conquest, you can distribute it so four of your chars each have 50k. That's 4 x chars at conq target and 4x the rewards. Stuff like weeklies offer generous haul but it is always dumped on one character. Maybe you get close to 200k from single mission. It results in one of your chars having 230k conq or something.

 

TLDR Weekly missions increase amount of conquest guilds earn, but they do not increase amount of credits g

enerated.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Stradlin

[TrixxieTriss]

Of course it has much to do with the cause. Nothing generates as much new credits to the game as fast as conquest. Curiously, this is true for two very different extremes.

Player A) Somebody is very casual, only plays few hours a week. Does maybe grand total of 10 missions, reaches personal and guild's conquest target on one character while at it.

Player B) Super hardcore conq farmer, reaches conq target o 30 chars each week.

For both players A and B, conquest rewards amount to majority of the credits they create to the world each week.

 

It is crazy BW just sat on their hands on this for 2 years or something. Nerfing it now slows inflation down, but it doesn't reduce it.

 

What is needed is some good cosmetic credit sinks or make changing you’re secondary combat stance to something new cost a lot of credits (currently we will be locked once you make the choice). That would be an excellent credit sink.

[robwettengel]

Would it be possible to introduce a toggle on the GTN to have a seller post items only for F2P/preferred?

 

This toggle would trigger a "F2p/pref mode" that would make items that sellers choose to sell in this mode would be BoP or BoL upon purchase? Making the item BoP or BoL would ensure that sub's couldn't create an F2P account to pick up items for cheap and relist them at higher prices. F2P/pref players would have a toggle to view items listed using the seller toggle.

[TrixxieTriss]

Would it be possible to introduce a toggle on the GTN to have a seller post items only for F2P/preferred?

 

This toggle would trigger a "F2p/pref mode" that would make items that sellers choose to sell in this mode would be BoP or BoL upon purchase? Making the item BoP or BoL would ensure that sub's couldn't create an F2P account to pick up items for cheap and relist them at higher prices. F2P/pref players would have a toggle to view items listed using the seller toggle.

 

How does that solve anything? Sorry, not trying to be rude. I just don’t understand what your idea is supposed to achieve ?

[Stradlin]

What is needed is some good cosmetic credit sinks or make changing you’re secondary combat stance to something new cost a lot of credits (currently we will be locked once you make the choice). That would be an excellent credit sink.

 

 

They could turn gametime into something that can be sold/bought for credits. Something like this:

 

* Introducing: 60 day gametime token as an in-game item. Right click and boom, you got 60 days of sub.

* Only way to create a new 60 day gametime token is by buying one from Bioware for real money.Not cc.

* Token can't be traded to another player directly. It can only be put on GTN.

* When buying it, 25% of credits go poof as sales tax.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Stradlin

[TrixxieTriss]

They could turn gametime into something that can be sold/bought for credits. Something like this:

 

* Introducing: 60 day gametime token as an in-game item. Right click and boom, you got 60 days of sub.

* Only way to create a new 60 day gametime token is by buying one from Bioware for real money.Not cc.

* Token can't be traded to another player directly. It can only be put on GTN.

* When buying it, 25% of credits go poof as sales tax.

 

If it cost cash and not CC then it might work. But aren’t Blizzard having issues with their token for credits scheme? What’s to say those same problems wouldn’t happen here.

[Stradlin]

If it cost cash and not CC then it might work. But aren’t Blizzard having issues with their token for credits scheme? What’s to say those same problems wouldn’t happen here.

 

No idea bout current state of wow's token. Last I played many years back, it seemed to work great tho.

 

It'd also hurt gold sellers, since this basically would amount to an official and approved rl cash->in game credits route.

 

Assuming such token would be like 20 bux/month, then no doubt it'd cost more than 1 bil from the get go in this current inflation. So it'd also have to come with GTN update that puts us past 1 bil max pricetag. Regardless, it is Crazy that >1 bil GTN pricetags isn't a thing yet. They aren't even talking about that.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Stradlin

[Cretu]

Instead of building a really good expansion adding to game and improving it they waste time and resources taking a sledgehammer to the game and totally demolishing it!

 

The usual flawed and faulty reasoning are given and it is back to the bad old days of just do it our way of play the content that we tell you or you will get nothing.

 

The small rewards you get for doing conquests has next to nothing to do with the mass inflation in the game and everything to do with the expolits that people had previously used to generated billions.

 

Of course Bioware get the spin doctors out and try to shift the blame elsewhere blaming those who do conquests and story.

[TrixxieTriss]

The small rewards you get for doing conquests has next to nothing to do with the mass inflation in the game and everything to do with the expolits that people had previously used to generated billions.

 

Of course Bioware get the spin doctors out and try to shift the blame elsewhere blaming those who do conquests and story.

 

/sigh…. it’s not exploits. It’s player generated credits from multiple parts of the game. Unfortunately, conquest is a large part of that.

Do I think they should nerf conquest rewards into the ground? Hell No. but they do need to wind them back a bit as well as add some really good credit sinks.

If you’re interested in a proper conversation about this, we have an on going thread over here so we don’t derail this thread.

https://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=996861

Edited November 14, 2021 by TrixxieTriss

[OlBuzzard]

/sigh…. it’s not exploits. It’s player generated credits from multiple parts of the game. Unfortunately, conquest is a large part of that.

Do I think they should nerf conquest rewards into the ground? Hell No. but they do need to wind them back a bit as well as add some really good credit sinks.

If you’re interested in a proper conversation about this, we have an on going thread over here so we don’t derail this thread.

https://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=996861

 

Problem is ... credit farming is nothing new. It's been around for a long while now. What else could anyone expect? Seriously ... just stop and think for a moment. Just exactly what has been happening the last 5+ years? Many players figured out how to make TONS of credits playing the game. THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. They simply played the game and received the rewards accordingly. OK ... their focus was farming credits playing the same missions over and over and over again. And exactly what have the rest of us been doing the last few YEARS ??

 

Sooo Now there are some folks that are VERY upset because someone else has a LOT more than they do ??

 

IMO it is unlikely that an issue that has been 5+ years in the making will be solved over night.

 

Credit sinks ( for the sake of credit sinks) wont work. Taxation will only be passed on (one way or another) . Shutting down the rest of the game will only anger a lot more !!

 

** Excessive "bonus" credits connected to CQ's is detrimental.

** Good armor is well ... good (for business)

** extra projects or appearance items that cost "extra credits" would help ... depending upon the nature of the item (sorry .. I don't pretend to know what most people like ... I just don't )

** Protect smaller guilds ( not everyone wants to be in a mega guild ) YES even in the area of CQ's

** Make sure that PvP players are not getting stiffed simply because they want to do PvP and not PvE stuff

** Solo players should not be punished simply because they play .. well ... solo !

[TrixxieTriss]

Problem is ... credit farming is nothing new. It's been around for a long while now. What else could anyone expect? Seriously ... just stop and think for a moment. Just exactly what has been happening the last 5+ years? Many players figured out how to make TONS of credits playing the game. THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. They simply played the game and received the rewards accordingly. OK ... their focus was farming credits playing the same missions over and over and over again. And exactly what have the rest of us been doing the last few YEARS ??

 

Sooo Now there are some folks that are VERY upset because someone else has a LOT more than they do ??

 

IMO it is unlikely that an issue that has been 5+ years in the making will be solved over night.

 

Credit sinks ( for the sake of credit sinks) wont work. Taxation will only be passed on (one way or another) . Shutting down the rest of the game will only anger a lot more !!

 

** Excessive "bonus" credits connected to CQ's is detrimental.

** Good armor is well ... good (for business)

** extra projects or appearance items that cost "extra credits" would help ... depending upon the nature of the item (sorry .. I don't pretend to know what most people like ... I just don't )

** Protect smaller guilds ( not everyone wants to be in a mega guild ) YES even in the area of CQ's

** Make sure that PvP players are not getting stiffed simply because they want to do PvP and not PvE stuff

** Solo players should not be punished simply because they play .. well ... solo !

 

I would only suggest cosmetic credit sinks and a scaled GTN tax system.

I also wouldn’t completely remove all the credits from conquest because all that does is widen the gap of those that have large amounts of credits and those that don’t.

And I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

[OlBuzzard]

I would only suggest cosmetic credit sinks and a scaled GTN tax system.

I also wouldn’t completely remove all the credits from conquest because all that does is widen the gap of those that have large amounts of credits and those that don’t.

And I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

 

** taxes wont work ( not for me at least ... TRUST ME ... someone's gonna pick up the tab !!

 

** And I agree that completely removing ALL of the credits from CQ's would be a mistake. I'm referring to excessive " bonus " credits. Frankly I've not ran CQ's in a while so I'm not up to speed on the latest technobabble regarding this particular perspective. I'm only suggesting that the "farming" aspect of credits not be so easily compounded. It sort of acts like compounded interest on very large IRA. It's crazy how large those figures can get ... VERY quickly !!

(Note: this may not be exactly what is happening ... but IMO it's the closest analogy I can think of where credits are "made" NOT spent . I hope this makes sense. )