Conquest Changes Following 7.4.1

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, captainbladejk said:

As someone who has mentioned nerfing said points I think this needs to be said. I do not really want to see those pvp points nerfed. I'm glad the pvp folks have things to do they like. Now we need to get some objectives for the various pve stuff that gives as close to equal parity as possible. If people want to farm heroics to get their conquest, they should be able to, if they want pure FPs they should be able to, if they want OPs they should be able to do OPs, if they want some odd mixture of everything they should be able to. I strongly disagree that pvp should be allowed nearly double the points purely because the game mode is different

I know you’re not really advocating the nerfing of PvP, but your continued attacks against it isn’t helping & I don’t think you’ve considered why the rewards might seem unbalanced in the first place.

I think part of the problem comes back to something I touched on before. The devs drove away a once vibrant PvP community from the game. Starting with 5.x and culminating with 7.2. And they’ve been trying to fix that mistake ever since (and failing badly).

They’re tried to replace it with people who don’t really want to PvP as their first choice. Instead of fixing PvP & drawing pvpers back to the game. So the only way they can get people pvping now is to entice them with larger rewards. 

Wether we agree that’s best for the players or the state of PvP is whole other discussion the communities been having in the PvP section since 7.2 was released. 

But you can nearly guarantee that PvP & GSF will always offer higher or sometimes (depending on the server & time of day) a faster way to get more Conquest points. Otherwise participation will drop drastically & that snowballs into PvP as it currently is, collapsing as repayable content in this game. 

You don’t need to be a pvper or a fan of it to realise the game can’t afford to lose playable content. Because people still playing this game currently who enjoy PvP are also the same people who do operations, flash points, crafting, heroics & Conquest. 

We’ve all seen how upset players got at the removal of the reputation bonus from conquest. Imagine what happens when people lose one of those other activities they enjoy or tolerate to get conquest done. 

Nerfing PvP, GSF or anything at this point is going to drive even more people from the game. Which means less money to develop it. And I know that might sound hypocritical of me considering I just unsubscribed, but even more would unsub over nerfing PvP or GSF. 

But I am all for them adding more conquest points to some other activities. Especially time consuming ones like operations, longer flashpoints and other PvE activities. Even doing MM chapters should give more points. 

Edited April 6 by TrixxieTriss

[DeannaVoyager]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

We’ve all seen how upset players got at the removal of the reputation bonus from conquest. Imagine what happens when people lose one of those other activities they enjoy or tolerate to get conquest done. 

 

This is exactly what's happened to me. 

I started as a story/solo player. Then I joined a pvp guild and became a pvp player, I did that until 5.0. When pvp got ruined I became an achievement hunter, which lead me to raiding, which lead me to crafting. Crafting is now ruined. Achievements have turned into RNG, or they are buggy, or they have moving goalposts, and I've done most fo them anyways. I even tried to get into GSF when it was new, but quickly lost interest because of premades. The only thing left for me is raiding, and even that is hanging by a thread because of the ability pruning in 7.0 and rotating weeklies. If I want to do a raid that is not on the list that week or I have to swap a character, I'm being denied the weekly rewards. What kind of game company does that to their players, really.

[AFadedMemory]

22 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

That’s fine and all, but when the current player base is abandoning the game because of poor design choices by the dev team, what makes a new player want to play?

It’s not like swtor does any advertising or marketing to gain new players. It relies solely on word of mouth or Star Wars fans or random people accidentally stumbling over the game.

It’s also not like it’s even getting any free media exposure anymore either because most gaming publications have stopped updating any news about swtor because it’s nearly always bad or worthless propaganda. 

So following your logic, the devs are throwing out the baby with the warm bath water in the hope a new baby will magically appear in the empty cold tub. 

The game has been bleeding players for years without enough new players to replace them. But I think most of us can now see that the devs policy that all players are disposable isn’t ever going to grow the game. It’s always going to shrink it & at some point it will shrink too much & will be closed because of it. 

P.S. I noticed you didn’t deny having insider information either. So if you do have an insiders perspective & these arguments you make are a reflection of the dev team’s attitude, then it doesn’t bode well for the continuation of this games enjoyment or longevity. 

The system is more complex then if devs do this game will be 100% successful, populated and profitable forever. there are many variables in and outside the game that need to be considered. And even when there are system's of rewards/value that generates profit for a significant time. They become turn offs/damaging when every single game implements them/there aren’t sufficient sinks and deterrents.

Now I agree that the Devs make mistakes that damage the longevity of SWTOR. The server fiasco was one of those. Marketing can be one if not used when justified. I imagine they don’t have the budget but they could have at least modified their transfer policy and emailed every account’s email when they were planning to launch the new server. it could have said something like this: “Due to a new server launching in the apac zone we updated our policy. please review it.” Advertisement  through legal loophole. 

Now I don’t think that the nerf is conceptually a bad idea, and just because player don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t needed. Now was it the right time to implement it? Probably not. There was still frustration left from the server issue. Throw in the patch note error (whether intentional or not it was still an error) it could do more damage then good. Truthfully only time will actually tell.

I don’t have insider information, nor do I actively seek/associate with people who have and talk about this information. (If I do talk to them it would be because of activities where their jobs and related information aren’t discussed.)

[VegaMist]

4 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

The system is more complex then if devs do this game will be 100% successful, populated and profitable forever. there are many variables in and outside the game that need to be considered. And even when there are system's of rewards/value that generates profit for a significant time. They become turn offs/damaging when every single game implements them/there aren’t sufficient sinks and deterrents.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here.

5 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Now I don’t think that the nerf is conceptually a bad idea, and just because player don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t needed. Now was it the right time to implement it? Probably not. There was still frustration left from the server issue. Throw in the patch note error (whether intentional or not it was still an error) it could do more damage then good. Truthfully only time will actually tell.

You may not think so, but it is. The only good thing about it was that it started a discussion regarding lack of Conquest Objectives or a disproportionately low number of points awarded for some existing Conquest Objectives - looking at you Flashpoints and Operations. Maybe, this disparity will get addressed as a result, but I'm not holding my breath.

9 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

I don’t have insider information, nor do I actively seek/associate with people who have and talk about this information. (If I do talk to them it would be because of activities where their jobs and related information aren’t discussed.)

OK, so you just made things up when you listed things that looked like insider information. Got it.

[captainbladejk]

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

I know you’re not really advocating the nerfing of PvP, but your continued attacks against it isn’t helping & I don’t think you’ve considered why the rewards might seem unbalanced in the first place.

I don't mean this how it will sound over pure text comms and it's not directed at you specifically. But if the pvp community doesn't want to risk hearing potential calls for nerfs to the pvp objectives and their playstyle, they should reign in the elements in their own community demanding nerfs to mine. Otherwise I am going to demand they be held to the same standard they're trying to force on me. Regardless, the point disparity is a discussion that's needed to happen for some time. 

Also respectfully there is no "seem" unbalanced, it is unbalanced. I don't expect everything to be point for point equal as that's a nigh unrealistic goal. However they should be at least within 5% of each other regardless of which one has the extra 5%. I'm well aware of a bunch of the pvp guys leaving in 5.0, again I was there. I agree with you that pvp isn't in good shape right now, for that matter the entire game isn't in good shape. Our disagreement is not in whether improvements need to be made all around because they do, but what those improvements should be. 

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

But you can nearly guarantee that PvP & GSF will always offer higher or sometimes (depending on the server & time of day) a faster way to get more Conquest points. Otherwise participation will drop drastically & that snowballs into PvP as it currently is, collapsing as repayable content in this game. 

This is where I strongly disagree. I get that they want to try to get more people into pvp and GSF, but the way they're doing it now is unnecessary and comes off as "play pvp and GSF or else". A similar situation occurred in WoW just a few years back in one of their expacs in Battle for Azeroth I believe it was. They wanted to give people an additional 20% experience if they flagged for pvp, and people rightfully protested it saying it was being told to flag for pvp or eat a 20% nerf to their experience. So that got scrapped. I give the devs some benefit of doubt in that they may legitimately have not intended harm by it, but you cannot just give such massive advantages to one side or the other as it comes off as trying to force people into that game mode. Thus you run into those exact issues of people joining that don't want to be there I've seen several people say they don't want in those matches. 

Speaking from my experiences creating content, resorting to that dramatic of a band-aid solution tells me you have critical core issues going on with the content that haven't been addressed, either in handling it, how it's made, or so on. In content development if you want someone to interact with something, go to a certain part of a map, or what have you, you have to answer the questions of "why would they ever interact with this" and "why would they ever go there". If you as the creator of that something and that map can't come up with valid answers, you can't expect the general playerbase to come up with it either. When creating various maps if I wanted someone to go to a certain spot on the map I had to give them a reason to go there, typically it was some extra health packs, maybe some stronger weapons, armor kits, perfect vantage point to pick off foes, or combination of things. I would say about 80% of the time it worked because you're always going to have those wildcards that do their own thing. Simultaneously I learned very early on I can't force people to do what I wanted them to do. Because what's going to happen is they're just not going to play my content or use my stuff. If I want them to use my stuff or play my content a certain way, I have to address why they're not doing it. Sometimes it's simple and sometimes it's not, and sometimes I was targeting the wrong audience. 

As an example on this I gave before, I am the author of the Space Engineers 2125 era mod which is essentially a rebalance of all the vanilla blocks in game from weapons all the way down to basic armor. Originally I had no intentions of adding railgun turrets, the beefed up solar panels, or some of the armor panel blocks that exist in the mod. However a user asked for them saying alot more folks may use it if I had dedicated railgun turrets and solar panels since not everyone wants to use bulky reactors. So I rolled the dice and learned to make custom turrets and solar panels and added them to the mod. Sure enough it got some more subs. I also added some armor panels to the mod that you can't get in the vanilla game as another draw. So in each of those things I have things meant to appeal to the big weapon guys, the green energy folks, and space barbie folks who want to use different armor panels they can't get naturally. It may not be alot of people at once, but the largest french server for the game uses my mod, I know that much. 

Now how does that apply to pvp in this game, I addressed some things that created further draw to the mod and picked up some extra skills in the process including creation and editing of particle effects (massive pain in the aft shuttlebay originally). In this instance the devs need to be addressing core issues of why people don't want to join pvp matches and GSF. No amount of extra rewards or anything is going to make the pve crowd suddenly decide "you know what I'm going to do pvp and like it". It's going to come off as them trying to pigeonhole into doing stuff they don't want to do, just like this push of "just do heroics" is doing. My issue is they're trying to band-aid solution things while ignoring core issues and it's harming the game as a whole. I'm sorry but I do not accept that pvp should be allowed nearly double the points because the game mode is different. If they're concerned about queue times and getting people in the door, be it pvp, MM FPs, or whatever, they need to address why people are hesitant to join those queues to start with and they're not. Artificially proping up something without ever addressing core issues only delays the inevitable and I can't speak for everyone but I would rather buckle down and fix the core issues vs continue to kick the can. First step is taking off the band-aid and suturing the wound. Because if you're going to have pvp and pve in the same game like SWTOR you cannot sacrifice one for the sake of the other. And currently the conquest on pve is lagging severely behind in terms of points. 

[Anhkriva]

53 minutes ago, captainbladejk said:

But if the pvp community doesn't want to risk hearing potential calls for nerfs to the pvp objectives and their playstyle, they should reign in the elements in their own community demanding nerfs to mine.

Can you provide a link to at least one topic demanding a nerf for pve conquest? I saw people who understood why they nerfed "one click wonder", but I didn't see anyone who demanded it.

56 minutes ago, captainbladejk said:

Also respectfully there is no "seem" unbalanced, it is unbalanced. I don't expect everything to be point for point equal as that's a nigh unrealistic goal. However they should be at least within 5% of each other regardless of which one has the extra 5%

I'll ask again, how do you want to balance pve and pvp when pvp has astronomical differences depending on the server and the time of day it's played? Look at it realistically, unless pvp has a GUARANTEED number of matches per unit of time, there will be no value to which you can equate pve and calculate your dream +/-5%. 

If anything, pve players are in a privileged situation, they can log in whenever they want, play without looking at others and get their Cheetos.

[captainbladejk]

1 hour ago, Anhkriva said:

Can you provide a link to at least one topic demanding a nerf for pve conquest? I saw people who understood why they nerfed "one click wonder", but I didn't see anyone who demanded it.

No such thing as a "one click wonder" as we've already been through with folks. In order to have a token to use you had to farm it which requires more than a single click. It requires active engagement to earn the tokens to use them. Simply because the claim process takes only a couple seconds does not mean it's "one click and done" for 43k. That's no different than saying a quest giving you a choice of tank or DPS gear is a "one click wonder" for gear and xp. It's a disingenuous argument that ignores everything else that went into generating those rewards. If you object to my use of the word "demanded" then sorry but I call it like I see it. If certain individuals don't want to risk hearing calls for nerfs to how they play, don't try to justify or call for nerfs against how I play or I will demand you be held to that same standard you're trying to force on me. By your own admission you've already seen people trying to justify it and advocate for it, with several posts in this very thread. Really a simple concept, if you're going to try to justify nerfs to how I play or call for or demand them, you've opened yourself up to me doing the same for how you play. 

1 hour ago, Anhkriva said:

I'll ask again, how do you want to balance pve and pvp when pvp has astronomical differences depending on the server and the time of day it's played? Look at it realistically, unless pvp has a GUARANTEED number of matches per unit of time, there will be no value to which you can equate pve and calculate your dream +/-5%. 

If anything, pve players are in a privileged situation, they can log in whenever they want, play without looking at others and get their Cheetos.

If you actually read what I said in some of my earlier posts and most recent instead of skimming you would have the answer to your question already. Your inability to find matches at certain times of the day is not my problem anymore than me not being able to get into MM FPs or OPs at certain times of day is your problem. I have maintained and still maintain time sitting in queue is not work nor should it be treated as such. If queue times are a concern, then form your own groups with like minded people and join stuff thus bypassing the queue outright until the core issues are resolved. You may not like that option, but it's still an option that's available to both pvp and pve players who dislike queue times. 

By their very nature, queue times with group content are random, sometimes they're faster and sometimes they're slower regardless of what you're joining queue for, be it OPs, FPs, or pvp. Your faction, the server you're on, time of day you're playing, what day you're playing on, all factor in across the board. Some group content is more consistent than others such as veteran FPs, however even they can be far far slower depending on time of day you're playing and what's going on. If being unable to guarantee a certain number of matches per time unit means you can't compare pvp and pve, by your own logic you have ZERO grounds to say pve players are in a privileged situation since the ability to make that statement requires the ability to compare the two which you just said is impossible. So which is it dude, can they be compared or can't they? You don't get to have it both ways. 

Since you can't guarantee how many possible matches you'll get for either side the only way you can run calculations is if you only take into account the amount of time actually played and assume the queue itself is a non-factor. Either because the queue has been bypassed and its a full group running, or it's a solo player that got lucky. So in comparing actual time played in the various matches and content, pvp comes out ahead with close to 1.2m (a little over 1.1m for exact calculations) of pve in an equal amount of play time. I can happily post the numbers again if you would like, or do you want to actually get fixes done so we don't need to keep having this discussion? 

Based off my own experiences with content if I was at the helm I would address core issues vs focusing on band-aid fixes. 

1: quit trying to pigeonhole pve people into pvp as it's not going to make the pve guy want to do pvp and only annoys both sides. If people on either side want to play the alternative game mode they will seek it out. 

1a: balance points as close as possible between pvp and pve so neither side feels pigeonholed into the other. one side should not feel punished for playing the wrong game mode. 

2a: Introduce a mode for premade teams only. I'm not opposed to premades existing, however there is a huge power and experience disparity between a well rehearsed and practiced premade and a random group formed on a whim. Like a team of NBA hall of famers in their prime vs the local high school team. Thus you only see premades vs premades. 

2b: Since premades would only be allowed to go against other premades, I would have a solo mode for solo people that want to join up for pvp which is a true roll of the dice. Perhaps giving people an option to join queue with a single friend so you're not playing completely alone. 

2c: This one would be optional depending on how the people wanted it to play out, but I would also leave a mode in for people who want a free for all. In this mode anything goes. You might get premades, you might get all solo players. Assuming the pvp crowd wanted this, then you have the ability to choose your battle so to speak. Far as rewards however this mode would not qualify for competitive rewards. 

3: bring back competitive pvp in light of parts 2a and 2b. You could have competitive solo and competitive premade and let people choose their battles. 

4: Win trading. If people are caught doing this they forfeit all ranking. The rewards they picked up illegitimately are removed from their account and transferred to rightful winners of those rewards below them. I would either divide it out based on rank on the leaderboards, or just hand it to the next eligible person below. Could be adjusted as the community voices thoughts. Then once the rewards have been removed from the account and given to their rightful winners, the win traders would be banned from the game. 

5: Pvp arena strongholds. I know that some strongholds have arenas in them now so this isn't entirely new in theory. However what I would do is give people a much bigger arena area to goof about in and customize on the scale of the Alderann stronghold. If people want to goof about and practice for certain maps they can, if they want to replicate certain maps or create their own they can. If certain layouts become super popular then look at incorporating that layout into an actual sanctioned map for competitive play, with an acknowledgement being given to the original creator. Thus you now involve your community to a degree in the maps they could be playing on. 

6: Revamp certain quests to avoid AFK leeching. As I said several times I don't approve of this, but I can't pretend it's not possible currently. For GSF I would split the "fly x type of ship" into a couple variants. First is giving "earn x amount of medals as (ship type here)". Second is changing the "fly x type of ship" to being they have to complete the majority of the match as that ship type, as in 80% of the match as that ship type. 

7: Forced respawn timers. This could sort of go with number 6 but you get the idea. One of the things I liked about Star Wars Squadrons was the forced respawn timers so you couldn't just AFK the whole time. You had 1 minute to make manual changes or pop a pre-set loadout for your fighter. Then at the end of that one minute you were spawned in ready or not. 

8: AFK ejection timers. If after a certain amount of time no input is detected from the player, or no input below a certain threshold is detected, they are automatically booted from the match and given an account wide lockout timer so they can't just swap toons and do it again. 

9: Starter mode gear only. Despite the name for this you could have a mode for GSF where it's starter gear on the ship only for those who want more of a challenge. This can be applied to other pvp modes or perhaps even some pve as well. Whatever the starting gear level is for your respective mode, be it 324 or whatever, that's the highest you can use. Akin to WoW's challenge dungeons of the same vein. 

Now again this is by no means meant to be a comprehensive list of things I could do, but it's a start. I'm not simply talking out of my aft shuttlebay when I say I've given it thought. If there are things you would add to that list, take off or change, that can be a separate discussion. To use a medical analogy I would actually try to cure the disease vs simply managing the symptoms, as the devs have merely managed symptoms for far too long now. I do not have to like your game mode to want to see it succeed. I despise most competitive and modern pvp with a burning passion due to one too many negative experiences with it, but for those who do actually enjoy it, more power to them. 

[DeannaVoyager]

2 hours ago, Anhkriva said:

If anything, pve players are in a privileged situation, they can log in whenever they want, play without looking at others and get their Cheetos.

Please explain how can we do HM and MM ops solo? 

[VegaMist]

1 hour ago, captainbladejk said:

2a: Introduce a mode for premade teams only. I'm not opposed to premades existing, however there is a huge power and experience disparity between a well rehearsed and practiced premade and a random group formed on a whim. Like a team of NBA hall of famers in their prime vs the local high school team. Thus you only see premades vs premades. 

2b: Since premades would only be allowed to go against other premades, I would have a solo mode for solo people that want to join up for pvp which is a true roll of the dice. Perhaps giving people an option to join queue with a single friend so you're not playing completely alone. 

2c: This one would be optional depending on how the people wanted it to play out, but I would also leave a mode in for people who want a free for all. In this mode anything goes. You might get premades, you might get all solo players. Assuming the pvp crowd wanted this, then you have the ability to choose your battle so to speak. Far as rewards however this mode would not qualify for competitive rewards. 

3: bring back competitive pvp in light of parts 2a and 2b. You could have competitive solo and competitive premade and let people choose their battles. 

What you're talking about would not be possible in the game's current state - we simply don't have enough population to fill so many various PVP modes (which I'd argue was the main reason the ranked got removed).

Much easier solution would be to limit premades to 4 players for Warzones (which was in place prior to ranked removal and should be easy to bring back), and to potentially 2 for Arenas (this might be a bit harder to implement considering current group setup). This alone would improve PVP experience with almost no downside since even most of those who group up agree that any group above 4 is too much.

[Traceguy]

15 hours ago, MsViolet said:

Precisely.

As I've said before, if we enjoyed doing Heroics, we'd be doing them already. The latest changes are great for people who were already doing Heroics, but the rest of us are still facing a long, tedious grind to achieve the same goals we were able to before.

For me, personally, the game is simply more boring now than it was before the "Advancement : Reputation" nerf. That's just not a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Well, my subscription runs out in a few days, and I've already found myself becoming enthused with a new activity, so this will be the end of the line for me.

Rep tokens don't spawn in our inventories though. How were you managing get them without doing something harder than toxic bombs? If you did something as easy as play the slot machine, what happens when you max that? Unsubscribe then?

Nobody enjoys doing heroics, and not a single person here has claimed to love doing them. Players who actually complete conquests on more than 1 toon per week are doing heroics, and the point stands, heroics are now 10k per planet. That's a 100% increase for 0% more work.

Edited April 6 by Traceguy

[captainbladejk]

6 hours ago, VegaMist said:

What you're talking about would not be possible in the game's current state - we simply don't have enough population to fill so many various PVP modes (which I'd argue was the main reason the ranked got removed).

Much easier solution would be to limit premades to 4 players for Warzones (which was in place prior to ranked removal and should be easy to bring back), and to potentially 2 for Arenas (this might be a bit harder to implement considering current group setup). This alone would improve PVP experience with almost no downside since even most of those who group up agree that any group above 4 is too much.

This right here proves my point that core issues can be addressed without having to leave a massive point disparity between pvp and pve that some people are saying needs to exist. 

Now that in mind I do have to ask one question regarding the pvp community. This isn't meant to be a swipe at you but is a harder general question in light of this and things I've heard other pvp folks saying. How is it that there are enough premades to constitute a major problem some folks make them out to be, but not enough to sustain a premade mode? Because some people make it seem like every other match is a premade, yet when I mention certain changes they say there's not enough pvp folks left to carry everything. Then I have to ask myself, if there's barely enough pvp folks left to much of anything beyond the one general mode, why devote any major resources to something that won't get much if any of a return? Note I'm not saying they should cease supporting pvp, I am simply trying to navigate my mind through the logic. Since you've been involved with pvp more than I have lately, make it make sense lols. 

That aside if all it takes is limiting premades to take care of some of the core issues of pvp then by all means I'm on board with it. It may sound like I'm trying to be an uber son of a hutt spawn over pure text at times, but I do want to see the game do well. Time will tell if the devs listen to anything or continue to dig their heels in and take us towards star wars galaxies territory. 

[VegaMist]

56 minutes ago, captainbladejk said:

This right here proves my point that core issues can be addressed without having to leave a massive point disparity between pvp and pve that some people are saying needs to exist. 

Now that in mind I do have to ask one question regarding the pvp community. This isn't meant to be a swipe at you but is a harder general question in light of this and things I've heard other pvp folks saying. How is it that there are enough premades to constitute a major problem some folks make them out to be, but not enough to sustain a premade mode? Because some people make it seem like every other match is a premade, yet when I mention certain changes they say there's not enough pvp folks left to carry everything. Then I have to ask myself, if there's barely enough pvp folks left to much of anything beyond the one general mode, why devote any major resources to something that won't get much if any of a return? Note I'm not saying they should cease supporting pvp, I am simply trying to navigate my mind through the logic. Since you've been involved with pvp more than I have lately, make it make sense lols. 

That aside if all it takes is limiting premades to take care of some of the core issues of pvp then by all means I'm on board with it. It may sound like I'm trying to be an uber son of a hutt spawn over pure text at times, but I do want to see the game do well. Time will tell if the devs listen to anything or continue to dig their heels in and take us towards star wars galaxies territory. 

It probably varies from server to server. I personally don't see premades as too much of a problem in WZs, or a problem at all as long as they do not exceed 4 players. Can it be annoying when certain premades get in the queue? Absolutely. Especially if they are of the type who just want to smash - there are some premades that literally ignore objectives and just run around farming kills and intentionally lose. And it can be equally annoying when you are placed on their team, especially if they choose to actively prevent their non-premade teammates from capturing nods. I may have more patience for it then some others - saw people getting very angry in chat on such behavior, even when it meant an easy win for us - but I'd have to be blind to deny it happens.

Now, a different question is, how often does it happen. Once a week? Once every two weeks? I'd say once somewhere between every one to two weeks is about accurate (in my experience). And, at that ratio, it isn't exactly PVP breaking.

It also might be personality related. Again, I may have more patience when some other ones who come to forum and say that "there are enough premades to constitute a major problem." Or perhaps the problem is more prevalent on other servers, since I only play on SS.

[TrixxieTriss]

13 hours ago, captainbladejk said:

but you cannot just give such massive advantages to one side or the other as it comes off as trying to force people into that game mode

I’m not disagreeing that it’s a bad way to do it, because this is exactly what they are doing in PvP & GSF or it would die faster in its current format. 

Where if they just fixed PvP & GSF by consulting with the communities & making meaningful changes, then they wouldn’t need to force people to participate in those parts of the game because people would want to play it. Even hardcore pvpers like myself don’t want to play PvP in its current format.

The blame once again falls on poor design choices & them not listening to player feedback. Then they let it fester & players leave. So they use heavy handed designs to make people play parts of the game they ruined or drained the fun out of.
 

Edited April 7 by TrixxieTriss

[TrixxieTriss]

2 hours ago, captainbladejk said:

How is it that there are enough premades to constitute a major problem some folks make them out to be, but not enough to sustain a premade mode?

Because this has always been a misnomer of a situation, even when we had enough players for this.

There has always been a larger portion of players who only premade against solo queuing players to try & own them. And when you have structured premades being unfairly put against solo players, it’s drives people away.

As soon as this games ever had a structured premade vs premade mode, that mode dies because there aren’t enough dedicated premade players willing to play against premades. The devs know this, they have the data. Which is why the current situation shows they just don’t care about the quality of PvP. It’s all about how fast it pops & who cares if half the players hate it. 

This is what’s happened in the past where we’ve had dedicated premade team formats. The very best players all congregate together to form a handful of teams that no one else can beat. And when they appear in the queue, everyone else stops queuing because no one likes to lose continuously. 

So what ends up happening is hardly anyone plays the premade queue unless they offer above normal rewards. And because you have higher than normal rewards, you get people who queue sync to throw the games for others who are friends or who pay them to do it. And this is when pve players or solo PvPers complain because they can see it happening. So the devs remove the rewards & the mode dies again.

This is why the people who want premades cry so hard when you suggest a seperate queue. They know a seperate queue will be nearly still born because too many premaders only want to premade against solo pug players to stick it to them & feel superior. 

There are also people who just want to play with friends on a pre-made too. But they are also against a seperate queue because they know the first group of premades I discussed won’t stick around to play premade vs premade & the queue times will be extremely long waiting for a pop. 

The issue is & always has been the section of premade players who only want to play against pug players. Sadly, there are more of them than any other sort. So having a seperate premade queue means it would hardly pop for those who actually want premade vs premade or to just play with friends.

Sadly, this game no longer has enough of a population to support premades in a health environment & matchmaking is broken & forces solo vs premade games because the devs don’t care to make it work. And this is driving the rest of us away from PvP, which is killing it.

Reducing the numbers back to 4 man limits in WZ or 2 man Arena probably would have worked 12 months ago. But this debacle has gone on for too long now. Too many people have had enough & any new PvP players they hoped to attract have been totally put off by the experience. I honestly believe that only solo queued PvP is viable with such a small population of players, especially on low population servers or outside of primetime.

Edited April 7 by TrixxieTriss

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, VegaMist said:

Or perhaps the problem is more prevalent on other servers, since I only play on SS.

It has always come down to the server & the time of day. The lower the population in the queue, the more destructive premades can be to the it. This is true even on the most populated servers outside of primetime. 

As an example, if you play Arena when there are only 12 people in the queue & 4 of those people are in a trinity premade on voice Comms & used to always playing together, then they’ll basically win every match they play. 

And if the matchmaking worked, it would try & build a trinity pug group from the remaining 8 players. But here’s the thing, MM doesn’t work & people can easily see that it doesn’t & get annoyed.

So after a couple of completely 1 sided matches against the premade, people start to leave the queue. Now you have less than 3 full teams & the matchmaking gets worse. And the premade won’t break itself up voluntarily to allow for fairer matches & everyone else stops queuing but the premade. 

That’s just a basic example & there are many variations to what happens or how it happens. This includes 4 man-8 man premades doing something similar to the WZ queue. 

The problem is population & the matchmaking being broken. And even if the MM wasn’t broken, it has no chance to work with such small numbers vs a pre-made that can choose its players & composition. 

When there are plenty of players, premades aren’t as bad because you might only come up against them every now and then.

But here’s the thing, if the devs had actually made the MM work properly when there were enough people, then pugs would hardly ever see premade players in those situations. And it wouldnt have driven so many pug players from PvP or the game. 

And because we can all see the devs don’t care one bit about the MM working properly, it really pisses people off who find themselves constantly put against premades when we know there are other premades in other matches playing against pugs instead of the premades being put against each other.

This starts a snow ball affect where pug players stop queuing. And that can really be felt the most on low population servers or low population times of day. I know, because I’m in Australia. So even when I was playing on SF or SS, it was mostly during low population times of day. Now that I’m playing on SV, it’s even worse because the devs have driven away the APAC players with their handling of the transfer issue. 

Premades just don’t work on low population servers or outside of prime time on other servers with such a small game population.

The best thing for the entire game would be to remove premades entirely during seasons. Make it solo only queue during seasons & hold premade tournaments separately on the populated servers in between seasons. 

Edited April 7 by TrixxieTriss

[VegaMist]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

It has always come down to the server & the time of day. The lower the population in the queue, the more destructive premades can be to the it. This is true even on the most populated servers outside of primetime. 

As an example, if you play Arena when there are only 12 people in the queue & 4 of those people are in a trinity premade on voice Comms & used to always playing together, then they’ll basically win every match they play. 

And if the matchmaking worked, it would try & build a trinity pug group from the remaining 8 players. But here’s the thing, MM doesn’t work & people can easily see that it doesn’t & get annoyed.

So after a couple of completely 1 sided matches against the premade, people start to leave the queue. Now you have less than 3 full teams & the matchmaking gets worse. And the premade won’t break itself up voluntarily to allow for fairer matches & everyone else stops queuing but the premade. 

That’s just a basic example & there are many variations to what happens or how it happens. This includes 4 man-8 man premades doing something similar to the WZ queue. 

The problem is population & the matchmaking being broken. And even if the MM wasn’t broken, it has no chance to work with such small numbers vs a pre-made that can choose its players & composition. 

When there are plenty of players, premades aren’t as bad because you might only come up against them every now and then.

But here’s the thing, if the devs had actually made the MM work properly when there were enough people, then pugs would hardly ever see premade players in those situations. And it wouldnt have driven so many pug players from PvP or the game. 

And because we can all see the devs don’t care one bit about the MM working properly, it really pisses people off who find themselves constantly put against premades when we know there are other premades in other matches playing against pugs instead of the premades being put against each other.

This starts a snow ball affect where pug players stop queuing. And that can really be felt the most on low population servers or low population times of day. I know, because I’m in Australia. So even when I was playing on SF or SS, it was mostly during low population times of day. Now that I’m playing on SV, it’s even worse because the devs have driven away the APAC players with their handling of the transfer issue. 

Premades just don’t work on low population servers or outside of prime time on other servers with such a small game population.

The best thing for the entire game would be to remove premades entirely during seasons. Make it solo only queue during seasons & hold premade tournaments separately on the populated servers in between seasons. 

We have lower population on SS compared to SF, and while large premades do show up, it's not as often as some would think from reading the forums. Out of the ones that do show up, only a couple are currently over-powered - the rest are manageable. Most of premades we do get are groups of 2 or 3 which I have no problem with. And while certain premades can slow the queue (there is one in particular that immediately comes to mind), I haven't seen them completely shut it down yet.

I'm currently only doing Warzones, so won't speak for Arenas.

Edited April 7 by VegaMist

[TrixxieTriss]

2 hours ago, VegaMist said:

We have lower population on SS compared to SF, and while large premades do show up, it's not as often as some would think from reading the forums. Out of the ones that do show up, only a couple are currently over-powered - the rest are manageable. Most of premades we do get are groups of 2 or 3 which I have no problem with. And while certain premades can slow the queue (there is one in particular that immediately comes to mind), I haven't seen them completely shut it down yet.

I'm currently only doing Warzones, so won't speak for Arenas.

Like I said, it also depends on the time of day & the server. This isn’t a one size fits all situation. But many think that if it’s not a problem for them, then it doesn’t exist. 

[VegaMist]

2 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Like I said, it also depends on the time of day & the server. This isn’t a one size fits all situation. But many think that if it’s not a problem for them, then it doesn’t exist. 

Depends on the server was the very first thing I said. So, not sure why you're now saying it back to me.

8 hours ago, VegaMist said:

It probably varies from server to server.

 

Edited April 7 by VegaMist

[LJ_Gibbs]

On 4/5/2024 at 3:57 AM, JakRoanin said:

I understand that but there is a limit. Do we have to like this game? No. But most of the stuff on the forum isn't constructive criticism. I know a lot of people don't want to hear that but it isn't. As I've mentioned I am a writer, and if someone tells me they don't like my stuff because it's constructed poorly that's on me! If they tell me they hate it because my ideas weren't what they want, that's on them, and I'm not obligated to compromise my ideas or spend more time and energy to make them happy, because they can choose not to read my work.

Video games are a creative outlet. Get mad because of bugs, yes sure absolutely, want more OPS, PvP, so-on, Sure, criticize all you want. But they have the right to decide how the game is played and the creative decisions that come with it. Period. They want to nerf the points for Reputation conquest and buff Ziost, they can do that. They want to keep bringing back old villains they get to do that. They want to make a planet out of cotton candy, they can, period.

But ... when you are told TIME AND TIME AGAIN that the path you are taking your game is wrong when testing stuff on the PTS ... and then DOUBLE DOWN ... and do it anyway? 

[LJ_Gibbs]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:01 AM, captainbladejk said:

They said they're listening to feedback and value our opinions, but keep coming back on here to dev-splain why they're right and we're all wrong, so that's a 2nd lie.

^^^ THIS THIS THIS

[LJ_Gibbs]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:53 PM, TrixxieTriss said:

Most of the issues over the last 7 months could have all been easily rectified too with honest communication & speedy changes to things & by actually listening to player feedback. But either institutional or personal hubris prevents any of that happening because it seems the players (customers) are always wrong in their eyes. So we will take our money elsewhere where. 

They haven't done that in 11 years... why would no be any different?

[Duck_Cider]

Re: insider information - AFadedMemory posted some wage and staffing assumptions, with qualifiers like "supposed" and "if". People should be allowed to post assumptions for the sake of argument, without being accused of having insider info, or of making things up. Are those assumptions accurate? I don't know. If someone thinks they have better ones, they can post them too. But the point about expenses, revenue, and the likely fate of games with profits below expectations is valid.

One big unknown is microtransactions. We shouldn't downplay their significance - they just might have saved the game from going under years ago. (Supposition, not insider information.) EA's public financials don't split between sub and MTX revenue, or split revenue by game. I did notice EA's "marketing and sales" expenses hover at around 40-50% of their R&D ones. That would be focused on new games, but it would be nice if Broadsword could push for a taste of that, especially if doing something like launching a server in a region that hasn't had one for over a decade.

 

Back on topic.

What rewards should afkers get? As little as possible. Instead of having PvP & GSF missions count matches played, they could count medals earned that day/week. Have conquest objectives like "earn X medals", or for GSF, "earn X medals as bomber". Maybe a medal cap per match, but doubling medals after a win.  Make sure new players who do something get decent progress. "Earn X medals this week" is better for them than "earn X medals this match".

Regarding premades: balanced matches should be the main goal, to encourage people to queue again. So large premades should go. If matchmaker gets reworked, and if it can be shown to provably, and consistently, generate balanced matches with small premade groups in the mix, keeping them could be an option. But at this point, I agree with TrixxieTriss - I think just switching to solo queues is the cleanest solution going forward.

What daily rewards should people get for logging in? Suggestions there should focus on login rewards calendars, as that's their purpose. Seasons rep did end up being usable as a daily login reward (or "one click wonder", if you prefer): use rep token -> get conquest points -> complete conquest seasons objective -> get seasons currency -> buy cheap rep tokens. Probably why it got removed.

What counts as "enough" daily activity to meet a target like 25k? I like the idea of taking the focus from rep missions to general ones, simply so people who've maxed out rep tracks don't feel disadvantaged for doing so. Since we're talking about reaching a daily 25k target, not heavy-duty conquest farming, once-a-day conquest objectives can be used. If a few heroics are good enough, assuming max stronghold bonus, any fp or op should also count. So should any non-repeatable main plot mission, since those missions are often longer than a bunch of heroics.

Beyond the daily target, what rewards should activities offer? In general, group content, whether PvP or PvE, should offer more than soloing. Group content has wait times, varying by activity, time of day, server, etc., while soloing can be done at will. (Wait times shouldn't just be ignored. Assumptions about wait times should be based on expected cases, not theoretical scenarios which don't occur in reality. Besides, the devs have access to real activity data to base their work on.) Joining any group, even heroics, helps everyone get their desired rewards faster. Ops can offer more rewards, as another sub incentive. Beyond those points, rewards should be based on factors like difficulty, plus average time required to complete that specific activity (not all fps and ops are equal).

Edited April 9 by Duck_Cider

[Samcuu]

1 hour ago, Duck_Cider said:

What rewards should afkers get? As little as possible. Instead of having PvP & GSF missions count matches played, they could count medals earned that day/week. Have conquest objectives like "earn X medals", or for GSF, "earn X medals as bomber". Maybe a medal cap per match, but doubling medals after a win.  Make sure new players who do something get decent progress. "Earn X medals this week" is better for them than "earn X medals this match".

I dont play gsf so I'll just comment on how this would effect wzs for example. Making it medal based still wouldn't encourage ppl to win matches within pvp as its currently constituted. The afkers would just change up their tactics and camp near nodes for defender medals for example. I could see 3 or 4 ppl standing on the one node a team has because they are racking up medals, while still losing a match and making no effort to win. Or maybe ppl would just run around grabbing the crit boost and then trying to get the big crit dmg/heal medals. It could work but I think you'd have to rework the medal system. 

 

1 hour ago, Duck_Cider said:

Regarding premades: balanced matches should be the main goal, to encourage people to queue again. So large premades should go. If matchmaker gets reworked, and if it can be shown to provably, and consistently, generate balanced matches with small premade groups in the mix, keeping them could be an option. But at this point, I agree with TrixxieTriss - I think just switching to solo queues is the cleanest solution going forward.

Matchmaker is broken, I'm not sure how it works but it needs to be fixed. For example last night a big 8 man premade was streaming, there was another 8 man premade trying to snipe their stream yet they never got against eachother. The 8 man just kept getting queued into teams of solo players. Not sure if it based on win percentage (which many have said it is), but if so that doesn't deter the farmers whatsoever because their win percentages are low, it's most likely going to match them against ppl who just want to win, and they will win because the farmers won't do objs. Nobody wins because the farmers don't get the big fight they want and the solo players are just handed a win while being farmed. 

First step is to fix matchmaker, step two remove 8 man operations groups imo. 

[TrixxieTriss]

7 hours ago, Duck_Cider said:

Instead of having PvP & GSF missions count matches played, they could count medals earned that day/week. Have conquest objectives like "earn X medals"

I’ve been arguing & suggesting this exact same thing for several years to combat not only AFKers but to also address the influx of people who only damage farm & don’t play to win.

But as I’ve said for years now, it would require each map type to have their own customised medal system. BW did start to address this a couple of years ago, but gave up too soon & seemed to pull the team away from improving it more before it was even close to being finished. So once again a good idea was tossed out the window before actually doing enough to make it work 😞

The medal system as it is currently setup isn’t customised enough or fit for purpose to do as you’re suggesting. But it is the obvious answer to fixing AFKers, damage farmers or people who expect others to carry them. It could also theoretically be used to add more competitive PvP ranking back into the game without needing a seperate queue. 

As I’ve always argued, a properly setup medal system would allow players who play to win & put in the most effort to earn the most rewards. This would even include people on the losing team who were expected to carry their lesser team mates against better organised teams or better players. 

The way I’ve suggested it would work is that medals + winning should give you the most rewards & achieve goals required for dailies & weekly completion. But even someone on the losing team who did the most in the match to try & help their team win, could theoretically get more rewards or achievements completed than someone on the winning team who just fluffed around doing damage farming or sat AFK the whole match.

Of course, this would require the devs to spend money & time & to actually care about fixing PvP. Something they have shown isn’t going to happen, even after swapping companies to Broadsword. If anything, their move to BS has only emphasised they have no inclination to fix PvP or spend anymore time or energy to improve it’s playability, fun or competitiveness beyond making it a time grind & a safe place for AFKers to do as little as possible. 

They won’t even address the large size premades or match making system. Which should be the first thing on the top of the PvP to do list. And if they won’t address those, there is no chance they’ll fix the medal system.

Sadly, what I predict will happen, is more & more people will learn to AFK as the means of least resistance to a format they dislike or have lost fun doing. The devs will see this data & respond with a typical knee jerk reaction like making only winning count again against dailies & weeklies. But this will only turn more players off pvping because matchmaking & premades will still mean skill doesn’t win matches. And if people are unlucky to keep losing from no fault of their own, they’ll stop pvping altogether. 

The devs don’t understand pvpers or their motivations. And forcing non pvpers to grind PvP when they don’t want too has been their solution to the devs driving actual pvpers from the game since 5.x launched & culminated with 7.2 ejecting the ranked PvP community. That is not how you build a fun, thriving & competitive PvP community. 

[TrixxieTriss]

6 hours ago, Samcuu said:

Making it medal based still wouldn't encourage ppl to win matches within pvp as its currently constituted. The afkers would just change up their tactics and camp near nodes for defender medals for example. I could see 3 or 4 ppl standing on the one node a team has because they are racking up medals

Yep, they would definitely need to do more work on the generic part of the medal system & also customise it for certain maps. Otherwise you are right, it wouldn’t work in its current format. 
 

6 hours ago, Samcuu said:

First step is to fix matchmaker, step two remove 8 man operations groups imo. 

Also 100% agree with this 👆. But we can’t even get the devs to engage or acknowledge it’s an issue since they dropped 7.2 on us 17 months ago. I believe they given up on even listening to PvP feed back. It’s one of the reasons I’ve unsubbed again. Because PvP seasons does nothing for me. It isn’t fun or enticing playing PvP when MM is broken so badly. 

I wrote them a small essay of 1980 characters in their limited feedback section on why I cancelled my subscription. I ended up having to keep deleting stuff because 2000 characters wasn’t close to enough space to lay out the reasons I was unsubscribing. Im sure I could have written a small book of reasons why I feel they have let me down as a PAYING customer & why I will no longer continue paying for a sub par product.

Sadly, I doubt anyone of substance even reads the feedback or that it goes to anyone not directly on the team that cares enough or has the power to question the devs why they drive long term paying customers away.