Conquest Changes Following 7.4.1

[Samcuu]

Heroics are part of my daily routine of hitting conquest regardless most of the time u can stealth to something and click and if ur not a stealther u might as well kill the 25 you need for the planet. So if you basically just hop from planet to planet and do the easiest heroic there it's more like 15k per planet than just 5k. It's honestly not a bad compromise. However I do get that a lot of ppl don't want to do the heroics at all but it is fast, I can do most of them in about 2 minutes (without killing the mobs).

[AFadedMemory]

39 minutes ago, Samcuu said:

Heroics are part of my daily routine of hitting conquest regardless most of the time u can stealth to something and click and if ur not a stealther u might as well kill the 25 you need for the planet. So if you basically just hop from planet to planet and do the easiest heroic there it's more like 15k per planet than just 5k. It's honestly not a bad compromise. However I do get that a lot of ppl don't want to do the heroics at all but it is fast, I can do most of them in about 2 minutes (without killing the mobs).

The unfortunate consequence of Heroics being laughable easy for stealth users is that I don’t have any level 80 ranged DPS toons (granted I could just use the second class but my play style requires me to get to certain point n the class stories to do that, or use the opposite faction class which I can’t do yet) Laughable Heroics are not bad. It’s nice not having to kill damage sponges to complete missions.

Edited March 31 by AFadedMemory

[Stradlin]

10 hours ago, TahliahCOH said:

This was always going to happen, though, Vega. I agree that PVP and GSF shouldn't be nerfed, but this rep cq change is clearly intended to make solo PVEers "play" (at) PVP and GSF. Many of us won't and will unsub, as I have,

Not necessarily PvP or GSF as such, but they clearly wanted  you to do more of "something". I'm guessing they see a pretty low engagement from bit too notable portion of population. As in people logging in and not really doing much. "Not much"  in some very basic sense, like very low amount of passed time and  mouse clicks between log in and log out.  From developers'  pov, that is alarming, Once one begins playing less and less, active sub becomes harder and harder to justify. Eventually things reach a point where nerf of a rep token is a valid reason to call it quits. So they'd like to make you more engaged. 

Its just that "here, do some more of these same  11 year old planetaries!" isn't something people are all that eager to get..,engaged with. 

GSF/pvp(and to some varying degree all multiplayer content in general) comes with tons of longevity for everybody who is lucky enough to like it. But ofc, it isn't for everybody. Any form of pvp in general isn't for everybody.

 

In general, I think it becomes more and more important for SWTOR to try and make sure as many people as possible "discover" as much of the game as possible. Been like 7 years since the days when this game got new story content at a reasonable rate and that isn't about to change.

 

 

Edited March 31 by Stradlin

[DeannaVoyager]

1 hour ago, Stradlin said:

As in people logging in and not really doing much. "Not much"  in some very basic sense, like very low amount of passed time and  mouse clicks between log in and log out.

Do you seriously think pve players only login to use a rep token and call it a day? If that would be the case, then who are all the people on the fleet, planets and fp/ops instances busy doing pve content? I can't be the only one who sees all those players.

Please stop mispresenting deliberately how other people play as you don't seem to have a clue and you are only causing friction between the pve and pvp/gsf players. 

[captainbladejk]

7 hours ago, Samcuu said:

So for the sake of ur argument ur assuming someone wins 100% of their matches lol that's not even remotely close to reality. Someone made a post today saying the pvp grind is far too long as they've got a win percentage of 28%, so they are effectively winning 1 out of every 4 matches, its 3 points for a win and 1 point for a loss btw. So without factoring in queue times that's two hours for one wz weekly. 

Anyways as someone who mainly pvps but still does dailys and heroics to get conquest on alts, I'm bummed about losing the rep cp. However I will still say that group content is more challenging and not always available, especially for ppl on smaller pop servers so it should be worth more than the convenience of logging in and playing pve at ur own pace solo. 

The calculations were meant to do two things, show many points it's possible to generate in a day assuming someone went at it hog ham taking advantage of the pvp and pve objectives in a comparable timeframe, all while taking a path of least resistance. It's what CAN happen not necessarily what WILL happen. I'm well aware that our hypothetical pvp guy likely isn't going to get a 100% win rate, however the win rate was never the point. The reason a 100% win rate was used is because that's the minimum amount of matches that can be played to complete those objectives. Likewise on the pve side of things, I only used 8 flashpoints because that's the minimum amount needed to complete Socialite 1 and Socialite 2. I went back and included the full 72 heroics in the calculations because our hypothetical individual was already going to be on those planets anyways and 36k from running all 72 of them isn't exactly something that can be ignored if I'm already including various objectives on the planets already. 

Respectfully, I want you to stop and think about what you're saying for a moment because I don't think you've fully realized the implications of what you're telling me and how it makes my point for me that either the pvp objectives need to be nerfed hard (don't want that) or that we need alot more points made available pve side (do want that). If balance is a concern as some people have cited, then you MUST have equal or as close to equal as possible points available on both sides of the aisle, otherwise it's massively unfair to whichever side is lagging behind, which is currently pve. Thus the gap MUST be closed by adding more points.

Here's where we get into some of what I want you to consider for this and why I said respectfully I don't think you're fully realizing what you said. In my original calculations as I said I assumed path of least resistance and least number of matches possible along with doing 20 minutes per match of pvp, which gave us a post nerf gap of 539k in favor of pvp. You then tell me the actual run time for most pvp matches is 12 minutes on average and I should run a few things again. This meant that our hypothetical individual can run close to double the amount of matches I had accounted for in the same time period. When rerunning the calculations it came out to around 9 additional matches our guy could run. Assuming points generation was the goal I assumed they would be GSF matches and this gave us a new post-nerf gap of 1,232,000 points in favor of pvp which is around 2.29 times the gap of the original calculations. Now you're telling me to use a 1:4 win ratio which is going to make that gap between pvp and pve even wider still. Okay, but as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. 

 

For our big pvp dailies we have 143k Arena, 143k Warzone, 110k Starfighter dailies. To complete these you need to do a “weekly” quest of so many matches, 16 for arena 12 for Warzone, with wins being worth 3 points each. For GSF you need 7 points with wins counting for 2 points each. Per request I’m assuming a 1:4 win to loss ratio. For Warzone that’s 2 wins and 6 losses for a total of 8 matches and 64k (8k each) conquest points. For Arena that’s 3 wins and 9 losses for a total of 12 matches and 96k conquest (8k each). For GSF that’s 1 win and 5 losses for a total of 6 matches and 66k (11k each) conquest points. This brings our total pvp points to 622k points per day and 4,354,000 per week. For run times that’s 26 total matches assuming 12 minutes run time each for a total of 312 minutes or 5 hours and 12 minutes per day.

For our pve side of things we have Socialite 1 (25k), Socialite 2 (47k), Makeb Patrol (38k), rep token (43k pre nerf, 8k post nerf), flashpoint daily bonus (8k) as the static objectives. To trigger those objectives you need 8 flashpoints total which pay out around 8k each. Actual range is 4k-8k depending on FP but I’m assuming the 8k again to keep it fair. For planetary heroics you have a quest for doing a single heroic on a planet which gives you 5k, then Defeat Foes Grade 1 for 3500 points, Defeat Foes Grade 2 for 7k, bringing each planet up to 15.5k in terms of static point value. There are 14 planets worth of heroics but a singular toon can only do 13 of them. However I’m assuming a person switches to do the 14th planet. In total there are 72 heroics you can do imp side and 70 on republic. For these calculations I’m assuming imp side. 72 heroics comes out to 36k (500 each). For time I assumed a person knocked out a planet in 10 minutes on average completing everything. Some may be shorter, some longer. I had also assumed 15 minutes per flashpoint and 20 minutes for the Makeb patrol. All of this gave us a previous total run time of 280 minutes. To account for the extra 32 minutes on the pve side of things I’m going to assume our hypothetical guy did 2 additional flashpoints leaving him 2 minutes leftover. For pve this if we assume 10 total FPs, all the static objectives, the 72 heroics and so on, that’s a total of 494k pre-nerf and 459k post nerf per day. Total points in a week is 3,458,000 pre-nerf and 3,213,000 post nerf.  

The pre-nerf gap in favor of pvp is 896k and the post nerf gap is 1,141,000 in favor of pvp at 2184 minutes per week or 36 hours and 24 minutes per week on both sides. Now far as extra points go assuming post nerf values that essentially means you get 2.5 (2.48) days extra in the week to get points that the pve side does not. In order to close that gap of 1,141,000 per week I would need to run 143 (142.625) flashpoints to make that difference up after tapping everything else out. In other words I would need to run an additional 2145 minutes or 35 hours and 45 minutes beyond before, for a total of 72 hours and 9 minutes each week just to break close to even with the pvp guys.

If balance is the goal that can’t be allowed to stand. That massive gap has to close by adding more objectives to make up the point loss. I don't want to see the pvp objectives nerfed in reality, what I want to see is the gap closed between the two and an actual variety of objectives added and let the chips fall where they may. 

[AFadedMemory]

1 hour ago, captainbladejk said:

Respectfully, I want you to stop and think about what you're saying for a moment because I don't think you've fully realized the implications of what you're telling me and how it makes my point for me that either the pvp objectives need to be nerfed hard (don't want that) or that we need alot more points made available pve side (do want that). If balance is a concern as some people have cited, then you MUST have equal or as close to equal as possible points available on both sides of the aisle, otherwise it's massively unfair to whichever side is lagging behind, which is currently pve. Thus the gap MUST be closed by adding more points.

Points possible/available and points generated or obtain are not the same. I would be shocked if PVP was out pacing PVE in conquest point accumulation.(ie where player’s points are coming from.)

 

I’d bet real world money that there is a huge discrepancy between the two and PVE is the favorite. Thus nerfing PVP is not necessary since it’s all potential and not kinetic.

Edited March 31 by AFadedMemory

[Stradlin]

2 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

Do you seriously think pve players only login to use a rep token and call it a day? If that would be the case, then who are all the people on the fleet, planets and fp/ops instances busy doing pve content? I can't be the only one who sees all those players.

No? See the  difference between these two sentences:

" I'm guessing they see pretty low engagement from bit too notable portion of population."

"I seriously think pve players only login to use a rep token and call it a day!!"

One of these quotes is something I actually said. Another, to use your own choise words, was deliberately misrepresenting what I said.  

 

 

2 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

Please stop mispresenting deliberately how other people play as you don't seem to have a clue and you are only causing friction between the pve and pvp/gsf players. 

There's only one person here who manages to inject a steady dose of ad hominem and various thinly veiled personal attacks on about..sayy, half of the stuff they write. Hint: Words of such person are present in this very post, but it isn't I.That is prone to cause friction. 

When it comes to guesswork present on post you quoting, I'm going by what Eric Musco wrote in OP of this thread, I consider them pretty educated guesses in that regard. Saying "Devs are bit worried about low engagement of players" is imo a pretty fair conclusion based on their words and actions in this regard.

."still requiring a bit more direct engagement. "

 

In context of these new upcoming changes, there is no "pve vs pvp" type of a setting present at all, only "content that needs people to happen" vs " content that doesn't need people to happen". These new changes make content that doesn't benefit from popularity bit more popular. These new changes make content that needs to be popular enough to even happen bit less popular. How (in)significant the "bit" here is..that's something we'll get to find out soon.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31 by Stradlin

[TrixxieTriss]

8 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

I agree 100% with that. However as long as some gsf/pvp players are advocating nerfs and pathetic points for pve players, I'll be advocating heavy nerfs for pvp and gsf. Ideally everyone would just mind their own business or perhaps even support each other in their requests, but not everyone is wired that way. 

Can’t you just ignore them? You do realise they are just baiting the water to cause a frenzy. 

[Darev]

2 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

Do you seriously think pve players only login to use a rep token and call it a day? If that would be the case, then who are all the people on the fleet, planets and fp/ops instances busy doing pve content? I can't be the only one who sees all those players.

Please stop mispresenting deliberately how other people play as you don't seem to have a clue and you are only causing friction between the pve and pvp/gsf players. 

I do this on 4-5 servers (currently) even with the nerfed values.    This week I've had more time, so I've done OTHER stuff as well, but if I'm crunched for time, I'll get the Companion Gift Boost CQ points, Stronghold Deco CQ, Rep token CQ, 5 crew skill missions CQ, and Crew Skill mission increase (occasionally).

It's a LARGE part of how I've been able to complete previous Galactic Season events on every server.

[Stradlin]

3 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Can’t you just ignore them? You do realise they are just baiting the water to cause a frenzy. 

 

Having different, even unpopular, takes on video game mechanics doesn't default as " baiting the water to cause a frenzy."

 

[Darev]

2 minutes ago, Stradlin said:

 

Having different, even unpopular, takes on video game mechanics doesn't default as " baiting the water to cause a frenzy."

 

Having a different opinion, by itself.   No.

Posting over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, turning the forum into PVP...does.

You have a LONG history of that.

[Stradlin]

8 minutes ago, Darev said:

Having a different opinion, by itself.   No.

Posting over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, turning the forum into PVP...does.

You have a LONG history of that.

 

So  basically people you disagree with should voice their disagreement only  once, and then if it turns into an argument simply remain quiet. Everybody invested on these things posts "over and over and over" again. 

 

[AFadedMemory]

13 minutes ago, Darev said:

Having a different opinion, by itself.   No.

Posting over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, turning the forum into PVP...does.

You have a LONG history of that.

Defending one’s point of view does not equal attempting to elicit an emotional response.

 

Also “PVP” requires at least two individuals. 

Edited March 31 by AFadedMemory

[Darev]

5 minutes ago, Stradlin said:

 

So  basically people you disagree with should voice their disagreement only  once, and then if it turns into an argument simply remain quiet. Everybody invested on these things posts "over and over and over" again. 

 

Not what I said.   This is a phenomenon that exists, that authors have to just accept with works they've written, people putting the meaning they WANT into what they read instead of just reading what is written.

You're welcome to post about your viewpoint, of course, we all are.

But is it truly / honestly enjoyable for you to be the opposing view to so many, over so many years, and across so many topics?

[Darev]

8 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Defending one’s point of view does not equal attempting to elicit an emotional response.

 

Also “PVP” requires at least two individuals. 

it does.

it's also why many people have some people on ignore and don't even see posts from the people who have been ignored.  I did that for 2-3 years before I just let it go.

[AFadedMemory]

11 minutes ago, Darev said:

it does.

it's also why many people have some people on ignore and don't even see posts from the people who have been ignored.  I did that for 2-3 years before I just let it go.

Do you know what the word intent means? An action can be initiated for more the one reason. Stating you disagree can be done for entertainment, or to initiate  change, or to kill time, and like you suggest even getting under a person’s skin. You could disagree with the intent to accomplish all of those at the same time. 
 

Therefore no it doesn’t. It can, but that doesn’t mean it always does.

Edited March 31 by AFadedMemory

[Darev]

23 minutes ago, Darev said:

Not what I said.   This is a phenomenon that exists, that authors have to just accept with works they've written, people putting the meaning they WANT into what they read instead of just reading what is written.

 

 

31 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Defending one’s point of view does not equal attempting to elicit an emotional response.

 

Also “PVP” requires at least two individuals. 

 

22 minutes ago, Darev said:

it does.

 

 

10 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Do you know what the word intent means? An action can be initiated for more the one reason. Stating you disagree can be done for entertainment, or to initiate  change, or to kill time, and like you suggest even getting under a person’s skin. You could disagree with the intent to accomplish all of those at the same time. 
 

Therefore no it doesn’t. It can, but that doesn’t mean it always does.

So...this is a perfect example of what I wrote in the first response of mine that I quoted.  Readers can put the meaning the want out of a text into a text.

Though, to be fair, this time, it's at least partially on the author, me, for not being 100% clear, even though I thought I was.

"It does" was a reply to "Also “PVP” requires at least two individuals."    I was agreeing with you on that point.
I didn't feel I needed to spell it out with a quote because it was the last part of the post, and my agreement was the first part of my response.  I thought they flowed well together.   It looks like I was wrong.

[AFadedMemory]

3 minutes ago, Darev said:

 

 

 

So...this is a perfect example of what I wrote in the first response of mine that I quoted.  Readers can put the meaning the want out of a text into a text.

Though, to be fair, this time, it's at least partially on the author, me, for not being 100% clear, even though I thought I was.

"It does" was a reply to "Also “PVP” requires at least two individuals."    I was agreeing with you on that point.
I didn't feel I needed to spell it out with a quote because it was the last part of the post, and my agreement was the first part of my response.  I thought they flowed well together.   It looks like I was wrong.

Lolz 😂 The intent behind your words wasn’t what I thought it was.

Edited March 31 by AFadedMemory

[Valdartak]

The same Heroics where if you take them all and don't finish all the rest are removed from your mission/quest list and any progress for doing a daily that would take a full day of play time to get through them all on some planets.

 

[AFadedMemory]

Just now, Valdartak said:

The same Heroics where if you take them all and don't finish all the rest are removed from your mission/quest list and any progress for doing a daily that would take a full day of play time to get through them all on some planets.

 

Yep

[DeannaVoyager]

1 hour ago, Stradlin said:

No? See the  difference between these two sentences:

" I'm guessing they see pretty low engagement from bit too notable portion of population."

"I seriously think pve players only login to use a rep token and call it a day!!"

One of these quotes is something I actually said. Another, to use your own choise words, was deliberately misrepresenting what I said.  

 

 

There's only one person here who manages to inject a steady dose of ad hominem and various thinly veiled personal attacks on about..sayy, half of the stuff they write. Hint: Words of such person are present in this very post, but it isn't I.That is prone to cause friction. 

When it comes to guesswork present on post you quoting, I'm going by what Eric Musco wrote in OP of this thread, I consider them pretty educated guesses in that regard. Saying "Devs are bit worried about low engagement of players" is imo a pretty fair conclusion based on their words and actions in this regard.

."still requiring a bit more direct engagement. "

 

In context of these new upcoming changes, there is no "pve vs pvp" type of a setting present at all, only "content that needs people to happen" vs " content that doesn't need people to happen". These new changes make content that doesn't benefit from popularity bit more popular. These new changes make content that needs to be popular enough to even happen bit less popular. How (in)significant the "bit" here is..that's something we'll get to find out soon.

 

 

 

 

All I see is you ignored everything I said and attacked me personally instead. 

 

1 hour ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Can’t you just ignore them? You do realise they are just baiting the water to cause a frenzy. 

Maybe, haven't really even thought about it. The problem is if that everyone ignores them and no-one calls out their disinformation, the devs will get the wrong picture and act on that. 

[Darev]

This takes an hour, with a ranged toon.  (Yes, I know you can't do tython on a ranged toon).  There are several short ones that can act as a replacement.

My point with this is, with the exception of Ord Mantell / Tython, you can do these on every single character you have, every single day of the week.    On toon 2, you'll need to add some more to make up for the CQ points for the kills that you won't be getting, but basically it will take an hour per toon to get to 100k CQ and this is ONLY COUNTING HEROICS

It doesn't count the Taskmaster CQ missions for lower level toons.

It doesn't count the "do 10 heroics for CQ points" mission.

The only thing this change does, is for a SINGLE TOON per day, require more time to get to 100k for that first toon.

 

If you don't know these lists exist, here's a link to one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/swtor/comments/ilwgre/612_fastest_appropriate_heroics_list/

 

[DeannaVoyager]

1 hour ago, Darev said:

I do this on 4-5 servers (currently) even with the nerfed values.    This week I've had more time, so I've done OTHER stuff as well, but if I'm crunched for time, I'll get the Companion Gift Boost CQ points, Stronghold Deco CQ, Rep token CQ, 5 crew skill missions CQ, and Crew Skill mission increase (occasionally).

It's a LARGE part of how I've been able to complete previous Galactic Season events on every server.

Yes, and you are not alone, but is that ALL you do when you log in, no matter what the server is, or are you playing something else after it? Or log out and call it a day, like this dude is claiming.  For some reason I can't imagine someone logging in just to use a rep token and then log out, without ever playing the game. But that's exactly what he is saying.

The base of this whole argument is that pve players don't get enough points from pve objectives which is why the reputation token points was so important to so many people.

 

[Darev]

Just now, DeannaVoyager said:

Yes, and you are not alone, but is that ALL you do when you log in, no matter what the server is, or are you playing something else after it? Or log out and call it a day, like this dude is claiming.  For some reason I can't imagine someone logging in just to use a rep token and then log out, without ever playing the game. But that's exactly what he is saying.

The base of this whole argument is that pve players don't get enough points from pve objectives which is why the reputation token points was so important to so many people.

 

4 of the 6 servers that was all I did during the week.   On the weekend if I needed to add a few more points to get my guild to the 500k mark, I did, but pretty much, yes.  That was it "most" of the time.

[DeannaVoyager]

9 minutes ago, Darev said:

4 of the 6 servers that was all I did during the week.   On the weekend if I needed to add a few more points to get my guild to the 500k mark, I did, but pretty much, yes.  That was it "most" of the time.

Fair enough. Although "most of the time" is not the same thing as all the time and nothing but, which is my point. I did fast rep conquest on a lot of servers during the seasons, but most of my game time still comes from actually playing the game. I usually don't get much cqp because when I play, I raid so I need to get the points where I can get them from.  During the seasons I swapped my focus from server to server every week, just made sure my main server gets 100 missions finished.  So if someone is saying I only logged in, used token and logged out, they are lying.