So after the first few weeks of conquest i have made a few conclusions.

First thing being that, conquest if fully geared for large casual guilds. Conquest fully rewards large guilds by giving them a massive advantage by not scaling guild conquest points by amount of players in each guild. For example, an active guild of 500 will always beat an active guild of 300.

 

Second thing being that, conquest does not reward elite content such as Nightmare Dread Fortress/ Dread Palace, Nightmare Scum and Villainy, or Terror from Beyond. Conquest only rewards player for doing operations in story mode and in group finder. Serious progression type guild do not get rewarded for clearing the hardest content. As far as conquest goes they are better off to do story mode. I personally feel that, elite content should offer exponentially more conquest points than storymode content.

 

Third thing, and probably the most important thing. For guilds that do manage to conquer a planet, they get control of that planet for 72 hours!?!? This is just insulting. If a guild invests several hours over the course of 5 days and manages conquer a planet the should not lose control after 72 hours. They do get priority of the named commanders which is nice and get to ride the walker looking mount (which cost a staggering 10 dark project kits) ;however, only for 72 hours.

 

In conclusion. I feel that all the work that goes in conquest and conquering a planet is simple not worth the reward. Priority over a commander and the ability to ride a super expensive mount for 3 days is not worth it. The personal rewards are nice however not illustrious. So if conquest is going to be remotely worth the effort, i feel the guild needs to be able to hold control of the conquered planet for at least a month and better/longer lasting rewards need to be given.

 

Disclaimer: I write this with the information that i know from two weeks of conquest and my guild conquering 1 planet. I may have missed a few thing or unintentionally falsely represented some things. With that, i hope to see if others agree or thing i'm way out of line.

Many types of guilds exist and not all content are catered to all the guilds our there. Conquest is certainly catered to the Large active player base guilds which are into group activities and grinding stuff. The past 2 weeks, ive noticed the top guilds in conquest on Harbs are certainly very large, very active, but arent guilds i would call "NiM Guilds" who have clearing 5/5 df/dp nim anywhere on their priority list. So power to them, they found a part of the game they enjoy and are clearly having fun.

 

After weekly reset, much of gen chat was of guilds boasting their new shinny titles and congratulating each other on a week of well done grinding to get top spots on planets. (lets not mention the saltyness of certain guilds and accusations of exploiting of the points system, Bioware is still working out the kinks of the system i think)

 

I think it gives the casual pve guilds something to do. They get to accomplish titles and stuff in game which otherwise they couldnt. And like it or not, this game is surviving coz of them. They spend the most money on Cartel Coins.

 

So yeah, for me, this conquest stuff is not worth my time, but it caters to the large community so, i hope it succeeds and BW fixes the issues with they have and so that it doesnt fail like how bad GSF did.

Edited September 4, 2014 by SupaHsuB

I agree - it's great that there is something to do for less hardcore guilds. There are a lot of players who cleared HM, will never do NiM, and have nothing to do - and it's a nice competition I think. Also it's incentive to use rarely used ALT's. Only thing I would like to see for the rewards for doing HM/NiM to be significant enough for those guild who still have serious ops teams to not be at a loss. There shouldn't be a pressure to do several SM ops on ALT's instead of doing NiM run. Eg. instead of complete operation through group finder objective, could be objective: kill operations boss - 500 points, or something like that. But this is not significant problem in my opinion. Hardcore raiders will always have their shiny titles, mounts etc. and sense of achievement and congratulations form people you pass on the fleet and so on.

I totally agree with what is being said here. The rewards are nice but not really worth the efforts. I am extremely happy we ended up in the top 10, two weeks in a row. I'm glad we did it by still doing what we wanted to do. Members were not kicked because they didn't participate or didn't log in a long time, there was no "major" recruitment drive for this content exclusively and our members did what they wanted to do : have fun while doing the content they wanted to do. Our groups went and did their usual raids regardless if they would loose time over the conquest.

 

Now what I find great about the conquest is the following : Before, you would log in the game and wait for your raid, pvp a little bit, rarely ran any fp or old content because you had no incentive to do so. Now you log in the game, you know they are weekly objectives for your guild, it gives you a sense of purposes or at least point to you in a direction to do something instead of wasting your time on fleet looking at gen chat. Not only that, it made you revisit some of the old content and even attempt (successfully I might add) solo old FP content for fun and glory.

 

Will I loose sleep over it : No. Do we need new PvE content : Yes. Is the conquest system perfect : No. It needs to be adjusted accordingly... BUT if the main goal of the conquest was to provide a nice way to grind old content and revisit operations, old heroics on planets, etc. Mission accomplished. But I think BW needs to adapt the rewards.

Conquest is not worth the effort, its mindless stupid grinding that proves nothing. Edited September 4, 2014 by Zoldrim

Objectively its not. The rewards are all tied right back into to the stronghold/conquest system and have zero game effect on anything else.

 

Even if your guild is going after it for the competition its not worth your time. There are a number of exploitable holes left in the system still that anyone youre up against will more than likely use. So, unless youre willing to stoop to their level, you cant win.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Dras_Keto

So after the first few weeks of conquest i have made a few conclusions.

First thing being that, conquest if fully geared for large casual guilds. Conquest fully rewards large guilds by giving them a massive advantage by not scaling guild conquest points by amount of players in each guild. For example, an active guild of 500 will always beat an active guild of 300.

 

I don't see how else it should be without giving advantage to a certain type of guild. At least with "big + active" there's IMO a lot of effort in itself to keep such a guild alive that should be rewarded.

 

Second thing being that, conquest does not reward elite content such as Nightmare Dread Fortress/ Dread Palace, Nightmare Scum and Villainy, or Terror from Beyond. Conquest only rewards player for doing operations in story mode and in group finder. Serious progression type guild do not get rewarded for clearing the hardest content. As far as conquest goes they are better off to do story mode. I personally feel that, elite content should offer exponentially more conquest points than storymode content.

 

The NiM part was addressed in the latest Community Cantina

IIRC the response was that they're considering how to award points for harder content like NiM.

 

I think the "X00 points per operation boss" would be a nice alternative to the current GF ops objective.

 

Third thing, and probably the most important thing. For guilds that do manage to conquer a planet, they get control of that planet for 72 hours!?!? This is just insulting. If a guild invests several hours over the course of 5 days and manages conquer a planet the should not lose control after 72 hours. They do get priority of the named commanders which is nice and get to ride the walker looking mount (which cost a staggering 10 dark project kits) ;however, only for 72 hours.

 

In conclusion. I feel that all the work that goes in conquest and conquering a planet is simple not worth the reward. Priority over a commander and the ability to ride a super expensive mount for 3 days is not worth it. The personal rewards are nice however not illustrious. So if conquest is going to be remotely worth the effort, i feel the guild needs to be able to hold control of the conquered planet for at least a month and better/longer lasting rewards need to be given.

 

I would guess that is a bug considering the lastest pathcnotes:

"Resolved an issue that would cause a guild to lose ownership of a conquered planet after a server restart."

 

My understanding of the intended duration is "a guild will control the planet until they conquer a different planet or the planet is conquered by a different guild in a later Conquest".

Edited September 4, 2014 by MFollin

Could have left out all these words. Answer to thread title is "no".

As some people have mentioned, conquest brings some of the older content to life. I agree in that respect that its good to give people a reason to do older content, HM 50 flashpoints and such. So yes i agree conquest was a good move however it seems like a cheap way to give players something to do. In my opinion the whole thing seems like a way to give "new" content without actually giving new content. The only new content is the items you have to purchase off the the Cartel Market. I say that due to the fact that not much of Conquest or Strongholds is anything new it just reused content that is brought together in a creative way and then tracked with a point system. I think Conquest is a neat idea but perhaps it jyst fell short of my expectations.

It's something very good for large casual guilds.

It gives them a goal, a competition and accomplishment without any skill requirement,

 

That said they have to improve it or it will grow boring very fast even for that guilds.

 

For more "hardcore" guilds its not interesting at all tbh.

 

On the other hand i'm just amazed the ways they find to make us replay old content and avoid working on something truly new

Edited September 4, 2014 by Dark_Mithrandir

Is it really casual though? The amount of man-hours you have to invest in order to maintain top 10, let alone get the #1 spot, is pretty intense. If any player with half a brain spent that amount of time in a NiM op, they could probably clear it. The total amount of time my team spent in NiM DP before clearing Council pales in comparison to the amount of time being spent grinding by the #1 conquest guilds every single week.

 

Casual? Not by the standard definition. Scrub baddies? Definitely.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Kryand

Is it really casual though? The amount of man-hours you have to invest in order to maintain top 10, let alone get the #1 spot, is pretty intense. If any player with half a brain spent that amount of time in a NiM op, they could probably clear it. The total amount of time my team spent in NiM DP before clearing Council pales in comparison to the amount of time being spent grinding by the #1 conquest guilds every single week.

 

Casual? Not by the standard definition. Scrub baddies? Definitely.

 

Mmm yeah i see your point.

I guess it's more friendly to say "good for large casual guilds" than "good for large skill less noob guilds that play a lot"

Is it really casual though? The amount of man-hours you have to invest in order to maintain top 10, let alone get the #1 spot, is pretty intense. If any player with half a brain spent that amount of time in a NiM op, they could probably clear it. The total amount of time my team spent in NiM DP before clearing Council pales in comparison to the amount of time being spent grinding by the #1 conquest guilds every single week.

 

Casual? Not by the standard definition. Scrub baddies? Definitely.

 

If you define "scrub baddies" as anyone who enjoys content besides NiM ops, then sure. Plenty of guilds in the top 10 have cleared HM ops and some have even cleared NiM. But because they aren't on NiM progression leaderboards they are bad players? Gotcha.

 

 

I would say the rewards from doing conquests are worth it, specifically the jawa junk to trade for mats. It's a reliable way to get Artifact grade materials without having to pay GTN prices or grind HM FPs/Operations. I'm interested to see how this alternative source of materials will affect the market in the long run.

But because they aren't on NiM progression leaderboards they are bad players? Gotcha.

 

If a guild plays the game enough to conquer a planet yet still aren't good enough to clear hard content, then yes, they are bad players. That's kinda the very definition of "bad player".

If you define "scrub baddies" as anyone who enjoys content besides NiM ops, then sure. Plenty of guilds in the top 10 have cleared HM ops and some have even cleared NiM. But because they aren't on NiM progression leaderboards they are bad players? Gotcha.

 

Agreed.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but plenty of quality guilds are placing top 10 and #1 on leaderboards. It's not just mass recruitment or lower quality. Be that quality PvP or PvE standards.

Edited September 4, 2014 by LanceCorporalDan

What is this, The Wizard of Oz? I didn't say anywhere that a guild that clears NiM ops cannot also make it on the conquest leaderboard. If they want to grind the same scrubby content all week long, more power to them. But every good player I talk to would rather do something else with their day.

What is this, The Wizard of Oz? I didn't say anywhere that a guild that clears NiM ops cannot also make it on the conquest leaderboard. If they want to grind the same scrubby content all week long, more power to them. But every good player I talk to would rather do something else with their day.

 

I was making it clear that it isn't just content for "scrubs or baddies."

Is it worth it to apply the same competitive gaming strategy you apply to NiM progression? No. Is it a good system that gives me something to do when not running Ops? Absolutely. I typically stop at HM Ops due to a limited play schedule and only casually enter NiM at tier and up until these conquests I hadn't logged in since May (despite being subbed the whole time). Now I'm having some great nostalgia running 'speeder & spacebar' Esseles runs for kicks like 2+ years ago (back then it was for light/dark grind). Even the Heroic grind wasn't bad since I was decorating with the datacrons. Good times overall. Edited September 4, 2014 by bdatt

What is this, The Wizard of Oz? I didn't say anywhere that a guild that clears NiM ops cannot also make it on the conquest leaderboard. If they want to grind the same scrubby content all week long, more power to them. But every good player I talk to would rather do something else with their day.

 

So it sounds like you define "good player" as "people who like to do the same things I do."

So it sounds like you define "good player" as "people who like to do the same things I do."

 

I don't get why you are having so much trouble understanding this. A player who cannot successfully complete a game's challenging content is either 1) inexperienced, or 2) some degree of bad. And if you play enough to rank highly in conquests, you aren't inexperienced.

I don't get why you are having so much trouble understanding this. A player who cannot successfully complete a game's challenging content is either 1) inexperienced, or 2) some degree of bad. And if you play enough to rank highly in conquests, you aren't inexperienced.

 

Let me return your own quote to you.

 

I didn't say anywhere that a guild that clears NiM ops cannot also make it on the conquest leaderboard. If they want to grind the same scrubby content all week long, more power to them. But every good player I talk to would rather do something else with their day.

 

So you don't deny that some guilds that have cleared NiM are on the leaderboards. What you have a problem with is that any of those NiM capable guilds might want to do something fun in-game other than raid. Does your epeen shrivel a little every time someone says they enjoy content that you don't? Because I'm not sure why else you'd be so fixated on insulting 99% of the the playerbase by calling them "scrubs and baddies."

I don't get why you are having so much trouble understanding this. A player who cannot successfully complete a game's challenging content is either 1) inexperienced, or 2) some degree of bad. And if you play enough to rank highly in conquests, you aren't inexperienced.

 

Or has no interest in said content, and prefers their own playstyle. Completion of group content whether it be raiding or ranked pvp is no measure of individual skill.

Edited September 4, 2014 by LanceCorporalDan

Completion of group content whether it be raiding or ranked pvp is no measure of individual skill.

From a purely philosophical perspective, you are 100% correct.

 

But from a practical perspective, players that do a lot of group content do tend to have individual skill. This isn't an absolute fact, just an empirical one.

 

I've been participating in a log of pugs recently. I've seen good players, bad players and average players. Because I'm nosy, I like to look at others achievements in pug groups.

 

Every player I've been grouped with that had a high achievement percentage of operations also demonstrated a high degree of individual skill. Conversely, every player that made excessive mistakes, didn't follow kill order, broke CCs, and demonstrated a lack of individual skill had little to no achievements in operations.

 

I'm comfortable in saying that completion of group content actually can be a measure of individual skill.

 

Note that I'm NOT trying to say that people that don't do operations are likely to be bad players. What I'm saying is, people that complete a lot of operations tend to be good players.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Khevar

From a purely philosophical perspective, you are 100% correct.

 

But from a practical perspective, players that do a lot of group content do tend to have individual skill. This isn't an absolute fact, just an empirical one.

 

I've been participating in a log of pugs recently. I've seen good players, bad players and average players. Because I'm nosy, I like to look at others achievements in pug groups.

 

Every player I've been grouped with that had a high achievement percentage of operations also demonstrated a high degree of individual skill. Conversely, every player that made excessive mistakes, didn't follow kill order, broke CCs, and demonstrated a lack of individual skill had little to no achievements in operations.

 

I'm comfortable in saying that completion of group content actually can be a measure of individual skill.

 

Note that I'm NOT trying to say that people that don't do operations are likely to be bad players. What I'm saying is, people that complete a lot of operations tend to be good players.

 

This may be for a number of reasons which you are not looking at.

 

(1) Operations take up a lot of time. When you have limited time to play sometimes operations is not something you can do, due to the schedule most NIM progression people set.

 

(2) Some people don't like grouping with people they don't know.

 

(3) Some individuals want to get the gear they need before attempting a story mode operation.

 

(4) Some people just don't like to do operations period.

 

So you may want to reconsider your view of people who don't do operations not being good players as that is not the case. I know a player who has just started doing operations and interesting enough her medic was the one that was the one able to keep a tank up when all the other medics had died. That was her first operation and she performed a lot better than some of the ones that had done the operation a few times before.

Edited September 4, 2014 by ScarletBlaze

One thing I forgot to mention. While I'm totally pissed that they messed with the officer notes that are quite useful as member notes are rarely used And although there's some bugs here and there. I will say that I'm very happy with the fact that the conquest was not "sold" to us as 3.0

 

Obviously a lot of work went into designing all of this, and could have had the merit of .5 version. But Bioware, by choosing to call it 2.9 was, IMHO, very respectful to those expecting new PvE content. They could have said that the conquest is 3.0 and clearly, there's enough development here to justify that... but yet they choose to simply version it as 2.9 and for that I'm grateful.

 

Hopefully 3.0 brings more level caps, new ops, new pvp, etc.