Conquest Changes Following 7.4.1

[FrontLineFodder]

to me reducing the daily reputation conquest reward is just another detraction from logging in each day.

not logging in each day means I will not get the daily login bonus

If I only login a couple of times a week I don't get the sub login bonus for login in 4 days a week

I'm not making as much progress on GS doing the daily every day

Less reason for me to stay subscribed.

I'm already unsubscribed anyway because of the handling of the Shae Vizla launch, Transfers to SV and that they allowed transfers OFF SV (seriously that last one is a completely idiotic move, who though that was a good idea ?)

The nerfing of the daily Reputation conquest reward just adds to the reasons not to subscribe.

[VegaMist]

5 hours ago, Estelindis said:

@EricMusco Thanks for your detailed post.  Based on your summing up of what you see as the positions on this topic, to me it sounds like you've listened to players a lot.  At the same time, the conclusions you've reached don't make complete sense to me. 

Let me try to frame this from a business point of view.  The rep token objective, at the previous level of conquest point reward, was a loss leader.  Just as loss leader products at a store help to get people in the door, the rep token objective helped to get players to log in.  Some players would just log in and use a token, just like some people just go to a store and only buy the loss leader products.  But more people do other stuff when logged in, just as more people buy other products from the store while they're there.  Accordingly, greatly reducing the efficiency of this objective, out of a sense that it offered a disproportional reward for the time invested, can result in many other activities that offer a "more proportional" reward not being completed by players who are no longer logging in.

Isn't it okay for people to get the satisfaction of a "bargain"?  Doesn't allowing this satisfaction contribute to a wider sense of happiness and goodwill, which helps to promote engagement? 

I think your ideas about allowing all legacy characters to access daily areas is good, but I also think that the rep token conquest reward should be returned to something close to what it was before.

This is an excellent point. Couldn't add a like, so had to to do it this way: 💙

That is the very reason Costco never raised their grilled chicken prices, even though they've been selling them at a loss for years.

Edited March 29 by VegaMist
Typos

[DWho]

2 hours ago, Stradlin said:

If they added more different  gsf/pvp objectives,then the few that are there wouldn't have to be so generous. 

Sounds like something to ask for then. Why don't you start a thread about it and see how popular that is within the GSF community? I'd do it myself but I'm pretty clearly on record as not liking the game mode and my starting a thread like that would likely just initiate a flame war.

[DeannaVoyager]

2 hours ago, Stradlin said:

GSF&pvp crowd is at a  huge  disadvantage when it comes to bringing tons of different characers to target within same week.. Like 75% of all  conquest objectives  consists of various soloable pve digs. If they added more different  gsf/pvp objectives,then the few that are there wouldn't have to be so generous. 

Well boohoo, cry me a river. How horrible for gsf players that they have to drown into excessive, undeserved conquest points.

As I said, that "problem" will go away once GSF points get nerfed to the same level with pve points. 

 

 

[Traceguy]

I don't play GSF very often for conquest points. I would like to, but I've seen queue times up to 6 hours on Satele Shan. I've even had Tuesday nights where I sit on the fleet all evening, and not get 1 single match.

However, I don't think it should be nerfed. Nerfing GSF or PVP won't help those of us doing PVE, group or solo. It's not going to undo the gashing wound Broadsword opened by slashing  the conquest points from rep by over 80%.

They can leave GSF/PVP points alone. They need to focus more on buffing up PVE grouped content.

• Why are "The First" and "SD-0" conquest objectives weeklies and not dailies? Why do no other World Bosses pay any points outside of special World Boss themed weeks? Imagine how many more people would get involved in WB groups if there was a nice set of conquest points waiting for them day by day. Tuesdays are a great day to group for The First, and that's because of the CQP. After Tuesday, any chances of people wanting to join a DK WB group drops significantly.
• Why does GSF pay a guaranteed 6,000 CQP per match (Win or Lose), but flashpoints and operations pay ZERO points? These need to start paying completion points. If Broadsword is going to infinitely pay 5,000 per heroic, will it truly be harmful to also pay 5,000 per flashpoint? A flashpoint will take more effort than a heroic.
• Conquest objectives are shared in the legacy. So why are certain objectives such as Taskmaster locked away from toons at level 80? I can log into an alt and do 10 missions. What is different about this then just doing those 10 missions in one of my level 80s? The same legacy is getting the same conquest points either way. It's just more frustrating that I lock myself out of these each time a toon levels past the threshold, and I have to maintain a collection of low level toons.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29 by Traceguy

[ytrenor]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:23 PM, EricMusco said:

Daily Areas is now relevant crit path Achievement (instead of crit path completion on the character), meaning they will now effectively unlock across your Legacy instead of character by character

It does not make the daily areas more appealing. The rep token CQP nerf still doesn't make me want to run these. Plus, since the day you made the tokens apply automatically instead of going in inventory, I only play one daily mission area a day so to not waste them. (that was before 7.4.1, since then,I just don't care about daily areas (those with a rep track, that is, I did run the Black Hole over Onderon last week even though I had access to Onderon). 

And with repeatable heroic CQ points, I really have no reason to venture in daily areas. I'll be able to do any heroics I like in any order, while dailies would require doing even those I dislike to complete the weekly (on the same day) to finally get a decent amoutn of CQP).

[juliushorst]

As a renowned developer once said, "Eh, it's better than nothing."

[Stradlin]

1 hour ago, DWho said:

Sounds like something to ask for then. Why don't you start a thread about it and see how popular that is within the GSF community? I'd do it myself but I'm pretty clearly on record as not liking the game mode and my starting a thread like that would likely just initiate a flame war.

Entire GSF community been asking for "Fly ship X" conq objective to be changed into earn X amount of medals-objective for years now.  They aren't big on some back and forth dialogue.  It takes few dozen people posting in "I've unsubbed!" threads to get a reaction.

 

Edited March 29 by Stradlin

[DWho]

6 minutes ago, Stradlin said:

They aren't big on some back and forth dialogue.

Maybe this is the core problem and why they don't get what they want.

The fly 5 ship objective change also has nothing to do with your "hypothesis" of having more smaller objectives. If you don't put forward ideas for these new "objectives" you have no place complaining about not getting them.

Edited March 29 by DWho

[TrixxieTriss]

On 3/29/2024 at 7:27 AM, Thraka said:

So basically, nothing? We still have to play much longer now to meet the same conquest numbers than before the nerf? Seriously, that's the plan?

And they wonder why they aren’t getting the same usual boost in player numbers when GS starts. 

I’ve been tracking the Steam numbers religiously since the APAC server opened to see if announcements & changes are having impacts on Steam player numbers (the only way you can semi track trends in player numbers these days). 

Usually there is a big initial bump in player numbers when a new GS starts. This time the only bump was during the initial patch down load period over a few days, then it’s gone flat. Player numbers aren’t spiking, not even after the opening of Transfers for the APAC region (because BS blew that opening big time 😡). 

We are now going into the Easter period which should see a big spike in numbers. But because of how they blew the APAC launch & transfers & made unnecessary changes to GS & conquest, the game is actually bleeding long term players again. The only reason the graph isnt showing this at the moment is because of the GS players that only come back for the season have artificially boosted the numbers. But if you look at graph, there’s been no actual spike.  

From reading the feedback, it seems 7.4.1c isn’t going to be enough to appease people either. They’ve still not appeased the APAC players or even addressed how horribly they treated many in the community by denying them free transfers when they should have qualified them. Zero communication about it, so they’ve lost all credibility there.

It would seem Eric & Keith are reacting more to players leaving than actually listening to what players are saying. These reactions aren’t enough. They need to start listening to what the communities in the game are telling them & acting on it. That includes communicating with the APAC community, who they’ve basically decimated again. 

One would think they’d know by now that doubling down on bad decisions only pisses players off more. And then totally ignoring those players is why they leave & tell their friends to leave or to never play. Sadly they still refuse to address the APAC players & they’ve now lost the majority of them, including long term subscribers who were still playing on the US servers before they opened SV. All because of poor decisions & terrible communication & then ignoring the community in the hope we’d all go away. 

One would have hoped for more from 7.4.1c, but alas, it looks like another missed opportunity. 

[LJ_Gibbs]

38 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

It would seem Eric & Keith are reacting more to players leaving than actually listening to what players are saying. These reactions aren’t enough. They need to start listening to what the communities in the game are telling them & acting on it. That includes communicating with the APAC community, who they’ve basically decimated again. 

 

They have NEVER listened.... they WILL NEVER listen.

They do what they want to get their jollies off... change of the sake of change and spew it off as "new content"

[Thraka]

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

From reading the feedback, it seems 7.4.1c isn’t going to be enough to appease people either. They’ve still not appeased the APAC players or even addressed how horribly they treated many in the community by denying them free transfers when they should have qualified them. Zero communication about it, so they’ve lost all credibility there.

 

It's definitely not enough for me, and my friends are all switching to ESO or something else, ANYTHING else, really, because they are furious over the conquest changes. They could fix this in so many ways, but for some reason they seem to think making conquest take longer is a good idea. It's not. It's a terrible idea that crosses the line for lots of people who were already fed up with the taxes and inability to help friends with gifts, etc.

 

[Darev]

16 hours ago, Traceguy said:

 

 

Toons under level 50 in your legacy already get daily access to taskmaster, every day, all year long. It definitely wouldn't hurt anything to allow level 80s in our legacy to participate.

  

100%. The dailies on Ruhnuk are a complete PITA compared to Oricon for example. I maxed Ruhnuk rep, and now I have no intention of ever going back to that planet for dailies.

 

  

 

That math is simple. Rep gain was 45k. A heroic is 5k. That means 9 heroics = 1 rep token. Now, per week, that's 9 * 7. Which means to match the conquest point loss, we have to do 63 EXTRA heroics per week... Math. It just works.

  

As for heroics, Pirate Bullies (Republic) and Prison Labor (Empire) are dailies for me on tatt. Also, I know a spot there where I can knock out 75 enemies in maybe 6 minutes.

 

That's not difficult to find, it's part of a story/quest chain.

[Darev]

The two changes I love about this patch are unlocking new daily areas based on legacy, and infinite 5k points for each heroic across all your alts.

They just made conquest super easy.   Maybe not fast, but practically brainless.  Whether you want to say that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's based on your point of view.  I've been wanting that back since they took it away after the first iteration of Conquest when you invaded NS and could practically max out CQ on each toon by doing all the heroics on NS.

Does it make up for the loss of the speed of the 45k from the rep token.  No, of course not.

Every conquest guild will be able to get 4 player groups and crush the fast heroics.  There's never been an incentive to do that, at least not in a long time.  Now there is.  The only thing better, or worse - depending on  your POV, would be to allow ALL of an OPS group members to get credit for clickies/kills in open world heroics...because that's still limited to 4. 

The change to heroics could very well take away from using GF to farm Mando Raiders, or whichever other FP of the week is the fastest.  However...if you have to bribe players to do content...it generally means we don't like it enough to do it w/o the bribe...so it needs to be better anyway.

I've always been a fan of Heroics and Space PVE.   I understand why Space PVE is all but abandoned...the "on rails" aspect of it leads to...issues...that really can't be gotten around w/o some serious reprogramming (randomization).  I would have loved to got on board with GSF but during beta we discovered there was no built in flight stick support.   That's a no go for me.  Always has been, always will be.  I don't care how many points you put on it, I won't be participating.  Warzones...if you could pick which one you wanted to do, I'd do them more.  I have one or two that I really like.  Most I don't.  But I also understand that if you allowed that, the queue for some of them would take all day.

Operations can be fun, I do them occasionally when I have time and there's someone looking for an extra DPS.  I like the original ones the most.  The new ones are too...busy.

For all that I could keep saying, it's still the only official Star Wars MMO out right now.  So here I stay.

But...devs...think about that.   That's a pretty low bar and there's a limit to time played on games.   Please start making this one better.

[DeannaVoyager]

11 hours ago, Traceguy said:

I don't play GSF very often for conquest points. I would like to, but I've seen queue times up to 6 hours on Satele Shan. I've even had Tuesday nights where I sit on the fleet all evening, and not get 1 single match.

However, I don't think it should be nerfed. Nerfing GSF or PVP won't help those of us doing PVE, group or solo. It's not going to undo the gashing wound Broadsword opened by slashing  the conquest points from rep by over 80%.

GSF players seem happy that pve players don't have big objectives, they are in fact fighting against us having them, so I'm just returning the favor. On top of that some of them are crying that they get too many points from one objective, so they clearly want those points nerfed to the same level with pve objectives. I don't see a reason why those points shouldn't be nerfed 80% as well. At least they would get what they want.

 

11 hours ago, Traceguy said:

• Why are "The First" and "SD-0" conquest objectives weeklies and not dailies? Why do no other World Bosses pay any points outside of special World Boss themed weeks? Imagine how many more people would get involved in WB groups if there was a nice set of conquest points waiting for them day by day. Tuesdays are a great day to group for The First, and that's because of the CQP. After Tuesday, any chances of people wanting to join a DK WB group drops significantly.
• Why does GSF pay a guaranteed 6,000 CQP per match (Win or Lose), but flashpoints and operations pay ZERO points? These need to start paying completion points. If Broadsword is going to infinitely pay 5,000 per heroic, will it truly be harmful to also pay 5,000 per flashpoint? A flashpoint will take more effort than a heroic.
• Conquest objectives are shared in the legacy. So why are certain objectives such as Taskmaster locked away from toons at level 80? I can log into an alt and do 10 missions. What is different about this then just doing those 10 missions in one of my level 80s? The same legacy is getting the same conquest points either way. It's just more frustrating that I lock myself out of these each time a toon levels past the threshold, and I have to maintain a collection of low level toons.

+ for all of these and:

- 100k for finishing HM operation 

- 150k for finishing MM operation 

[Stradlin]

11 hours ago, DWho said:

Maybe this is the core problem and why they don't get what they want.

The fly 5 ship objective change also has nothing to do with your "hypothesis" of having more smaller objectives. If you don't put forward ideas for these new "objectives" you have no place complaining about not getting them.

 

Ahh see   I  actually thought you were just being conversational rather than trying to pull some "gotchya!" -thing. 

 

- Replace "fly ship X" objectives with a 4 stage "Earn x medals" objective.  Or alternatively, replace "Fly ship X"   with "earn X medals while flying ship X" 

- Capture satelites and destroy turrets objectives for domination matches. It'd be great if game could somehow recognize a "hotly contested satelite" from just capping an empty satelite, but I'm not sure if the game  is smart enough to turn that into numbers it can track.

- Defend turrets is a natural too, but has its issues.(potentially too afk friendly, though ig it is up to enemy to make sure space is suitably unfriendly for unattended gameplay)

- Kill X amount of enemy ships for deathmatches.

- Do X amount of damage in deathmatches.

 - Come out of the match with some specific K:D-rating (3:1?)for deathmatches, minimum of 5 kills for it to register. 

- Reach 30k damage with certain accuracy %,, have the actual numbers required vary depending on ship flown.  

- Earn X amount of kills/assists through  mines and turrets you've deployed 

 Last three on this list are kinda "hardcore" as far as conq objectives go and as such, would pass as a nice reflection of arena objectives of ground pvp.

 

Could also cake up most of these into objectives of seasonal GSF  reward track. 

 

 

In general, GSF does great job tracking everything you do. Every single blaster shot and kill and death your character has ever done in GSF is turned into stats you can oggle at will.  Stuff game already tracks and records is prolly pretty simple to turn into conq objectives, when it comes to the technical side of it all.

 

Edited March 30 by Stradlin

[Stradlin]

1 hour ago, DeannaVoyager said:

GSF players seem happy that pve players don't have big objectives, they are in fact fighting against us having them, so I'm just returning the favor. 

 

It is helpful you literally spell this stuff out, so everybody reading your contributions  can place things you say in right  context. 

Pretty sure everybody  here thinks stuff like Ops and longer/harder FPs in particular should get a buff in terms of conq rewards.

 

Upcoming patch isn't about pve vs pvp at all. It is about "content  that needs other people to even happen" vs " content   that doesn't need other people to happen" Upcoming patch makes content that needs to be popular enough to be available less popular. It makes content that in no crucial way benefits from popularity more popular. All of this happens in a climate where grand total of two servers out of six can still provide  multiplayer pops in reliable fashion during peak hours. All of this happens because Broadsword ended up nerfing rep tokens, got thoroughly shaken up  by how angry it made people  and felt need to back down without undoing the initial change. One heck of a story arc really.

 

How significant these swings in popularity will be is something we'll get to find out! My best wishes to people in SS or Australia who'd like to see an operation or a pvp pop few hours after/before the local peak hours. Let's not even talk about French or German servers in this regard.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30 by Stradlin

[AFadedMemory]

Datacrons should give 5k conquest points, even if you already have it. The ones that require a group to get should give 25k more per person required to complete. (Not repeatable and legacy based objectives)

It sounds like heroics objectives are becoming per toon that’s cool. Don’t really care about rep objective, though I would rather have one big pop then a tiny repeatable. 

Edited March 30 by AFadedMemory

[captainbladejk]

3 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

GSF players seem happy that pve players don't have big objectives, they are in fact fighting against us having them, so I'm just returning the favor. On top of that some of them are crying that they get too many points from one objective, so they clearly want those points nerfed to the same level with pve objectives. I don't see a reason why those points shouldn't be nerfed 80% as well. At least they would get what they want.

All of this. Far too many of the ultra pvp types are whining and saying "it's just one click and you got 43k so of course it needed to be nerfed". Yet if we mention how they can go into GSF or similar and literally sit AFK doing nothing and get full bars of conquest and their objectives need to be nerfed too, they throw a hissy fit. They try to make every excuse under the sun about why it's different and theirs shouldn't be nerfed but ours should. They can do literally nothing and get paid, but we have to actually play the game to generate rep tokens to start with, but somehow we're the problem. They're far from the first to advocate double standards in gaming but yeah if they're going to demand mine be nerfed, theirs better be nerfed too. 

[Stradlin]

24 minutes ago, captainbladejk said:

All of this. Far too many of the ultra pvp types are whining and saying "it's just one click and you got 43k so of course it needed to be nerfed". Yet if we mention how they can go into GSF or similar and literally sit AFK doing nothing a They can do literally nothing and get paid, but we have to actually play the game to generate rep tokens to start with, but somehow we're the problem. They're far from the first to advocate double standards in gaming but yeah if they're going to demand mine be nerfed, theirs better be nerfed too. 

There are shields in place that do their best to ensure you get booted from unattended gameplay. It isn't perfect..nor all bad. Not sure how it is in WZs but in GSF, one must intentionally grief and be..actively inactive or you get booted. No "hardcore pvp person"  would even want to go to PvP match or GSF game to sit unattended, it'd stand to reaosn PvP/GSF is their fav content. 

 

Time and time again you compare disruptive and borderline bannable gameplay in PvP to some valid ideal gameplay in PvE. It is such a false point of departure. There are plenty of ways to " use" people, such as your friends or guildies or people who happened in same group with you to get tons of conquest for doing literally nothing in pve just as well.  Compare disruptive, exploitish or unattended gameplay to another. Rather than some perfect PvE ideal to borderline bannable griefing in pvp.

 

 

 

Edited March 30 by Stradlin

[AFadedMemory]

33 minutes ago, captainbladejk said:

All of this. Far too many of the ultra pvp types are whining and saying "it's just one click and you got 43k so of course it needed to be nerfed". Yet if we mention how they can go into GSF or similar and literally sit AFK doing nothing and get full bars of conquest and their objectives need to be nerfed too, they throw a hissy fit. They try to make every excuse under the sun about why it's different and theirs shouldn't be nerfed but ours should. They can do literally nothing and get paid, but we have to actually play the game to generate rep tokens to start with, but somehow we're the problem. They're far from the first to advocate double standards in gaming but yeah if they're going to demand mine be nerfed, theirs better be nerfed too. 

Why don’t you replace the nerfed points with PVP’s unfair points if it’s so easy to exploit? Because pvp is god awful. They have to literally give out personal conquest level of points as well as many other rewards to get non die hards to participate or the modes would die.

Edited March 30 by AFadedMemory

[FrontLineFodder]

43 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Why don’t you replace the nerfed points with PVP’s unfair points if it’s so easy to exploit? Because pvp is god awful. They have to literally give out personal conquest level of points as well as many other rewards to get non die hards to participate or the modes would die.

I wouldn't shed a tear if it did.

[SithLikeTraps]

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

It would seem Eric & Keith are reacting more to players leaving than actually listening to what players are saying.

As I said in another thread, the only vote the decision makers would listen to is the vote you make with your wallet.

[AFadedMemory]

19 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

I wouldn't shed a tear if it did.

Nor would I. I imagine the biggest reason they haven’t been gutted out of the game is the potential bugs and failures their program removals might cause.

[captainbladejk]

3 hours ago, Stradlin said:

Time and time again you compare disruptive and borderline bannable gameplay in PvP to some valid ideal gameplay in PvE. It is such a false point of departure. There are plenty of ways to " use" people, such as your friends or guildies or people who happened in same group with you to get tons of conquest for doing literally nothing in pve just as well.  Compare disruptive, exploitish or unattended gameplay to another. Rather than some perfect PvE ideal to borderline bannable griefing in pvp.

Respectfully dude, you need to learn the difference between describing something and prescribing something and stop conflating the two. Simply because someone describes something doesn't mean they're actively encouraging people to do it. Otherwise we would have to arrest TV reporters that cover murder, robbery and other stories for trying to incite those acts. Is it a jerk move to go AFK constantly, sure it is, but there's nothing exploitative about it. Second, if they wanted to ban someone for something like that they would have to prove malicious intent behind it and that the person was trying to actively disrupt play. On the playerside all a person has to do is say they had an emergency or technical issue they're trying to sort and you can't prove otherwise. I don't want people to AFK in junk, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't happen and isn't possible either. As it sits right now whether either of us like it or not, it's absolutely possible for someone to go AFK in pvp and get paid well over 100k points for doing nothing. 

The reason the comparison is made is because some of the so called uber pvp bunch want to say "why should you get 43k for one click of doing nothing" even though they can get paid full entire bars of conquest for doing nothing at all just by going AFK in a pvp match. They conveniently ignore that in order to "click once and get 43k" I have to actually do something to generate that token to start with thus active engagement, where as all they have to do is go AFK. So if they really want to tackle people going AFK they need to start in their own backyard before they try to worry about what's going on in mine.

The only "false point of departure" here is going from comparing individual players straight to groups. However if you really want to go there, someone somewhere in that group has to be doing something for anyone to benefit. So if you want to get technical about it, the pve group still requires some bit of active engagement and is not truly doing nothing. Now just to drive the point home I DO NOT ADVOCATE ANYONE BE GIVEN A FREE RIDE IN PVE OR PVP. Simultaneously I'm not going to pretend it's not possible either. Point still stands that if the concern is going AFK and getting free stuff, you'll get far far more of it on the pvp side per big quest.