Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Conquest Feedback and Upcoming Changes
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

AlainaFlute's Avatar


AlainaFlute
03.22.2018 , 03:45 PM | #61
"We never saw this revamp as being a perfect change out of the gates, but it is a first step for us in crafting an improved Conquest system. Your feedback is incredibly valuable as we can immediately start making changes to get things to a great place. Now that you understand what our goals were, letís talk about the things we are hearing from you."

This is just wrong! I am not a beta tester! WE are NOT YOUR BETA TESTERS!! We pay to play a game that is NOT broken! This whole quote is what is wrong with this game and the dev team as a whole! Every patch should be perfect out of the gate! Every revamp, every new flashpoint, everything should be perfect right out the gate! Fix yourselves before you wreck the game entirely! It is your job to make it perfect before pushing it through to the game!

calypsissmexy's Avatar


calypsissmexy
03.22.2018 , 03:46 PM | #62
Am I confused? I thought there were supposed to be more planet options in the new system. But it seems there are not as many as before?

Shwarzchild's Avatar


Shwarzchild
03.22.2018 , 03:49 PM | #63
Thanks for the clarification on some of this stuff Eric.

Seems like things are on track. Even if I don't agree with some of the things said I can at least understand where you guys are coming from and your logic behind everything.


My main gripe is the interface is wonky. But, it sounds like you guys get it and are working to make it more friendly to the user. I however do really like that I can track what I'm after on the side of the screen instead of having to open the window to see what I want to do next. Really like that piece.
Warstalker Isaac Bell The Revanchist From Beyond

Krysanthe's Avatar


Krysanthe
03.22.2018 , 03:51 PM | #64
I think this is a great start, and I'm looking forward to see how it ACTUALLY looks for next week.
"Once we're past saving the galaxy, we have to spend some time saving ourselves." ~ Mara Jade Skywalker

DarthSpuds's Avatar


DarthSpuds
03.22.2018 , 03:51 PM | #65
Until ALL Conquest Content is Alf-Friendly Conquest is dead to me.

Fed up of being incentivised to start ever more Alts because new content is rarer than an honest politician, just to get punished for having Alts when someone at Bioware has another "Dim Bulb" moment.

The core concept of this game is predicated on us having and playing Alts - anything you do that punishes that is just counter-productive.

I can't believe Bioware are too stupid/ignorant to have failed to learn this lesson from the Command Levels fiasco.

All The Best
#Is-This-As-Good-As-It-Gets?

If you think my comment has been helpful in anyway please >>Click Here<< for the Refer A Friend Bonus.

MikeCobalt's Avatar


MikeCobalt
03.22.2018 , 03:53 PM | #66
I appreciate the Post's and all However this is kinda fluff. Your posts said you never intended this to be the Final project, well possibly, but then why not be here in the forums and have said that? This is/was my Accountability issue from before. Its really easy to *Craft a story to fit the problem "Later On after everything calms". The changes weren't meant to stand, Tell people that right up front, Instead people have left (That's less money for Dev time and continue in SWTOR's Life). The posts still haven't addressed all issues I hope those will be mentioned later on. Your never gonna win anybody over keeping secrets and hiding in a hole until the scary time is past.

Sarova's Avatar


Sarova
03.22.2018 , 03:55 PM | #67
Quote: Originally Posted by Estelindis View Post
Regarding crafting, the "added functionality" of being able to throw a bunch of invasion forces down the drain is not something I want or enjoy. It offers almost no value compared to the other possible uses of invasion forces, such as dark projects (to expand guild ships and buy decorations) or buying the new conquest decorations (which are very nice btw, thanks for those). I have not taken this option and have no intention of doing it. It feels bad, like a waste rather than a reward. As a way of justifying or mitigating the crafting nerf, I think it's a failure. It's like a 1% rebate on an 80% tax-hike.
Agreed, especially for solo players. Did you guys not consider that invasion forces take hours to make as well as the additional (and expensive) mats? I don't have stacks of mats sitting in my bank, like guilds might. If you aren't going to change this, you need to make them a lot quicker and cheaper to make AND/OR significantly increase the conquest points reward for "donating" (destroying).

I am pleased that you took notice of the time it is taking solo players to complete a conquest. Usually I do it on a character over a couple of days then I can get on with other things I enjoy. The changes have made this into a week long tedious chore so the bringing down the points required to complete the weekly conquest cannot come soon enough for me (and my alts).
Fix Vector's Romance Eyes
6.0: more ♥ Quinn ♥ Aric ♥ Theron ♥ Doc ♥ Koth please
My Rishi
Magical Clicky Link

azathothgr's Avatar


azathothgr
03.22.2018 , 03:56 PM | #68
Quote: Originally Posted by EricMusco View Post

Your Feedback
We never saw this revamp as being a perfect change out of the gates, but it is a first step for us in crafting an improved Conquest system. Your feedback is incredibly valuable as we can immediately start making changes to get things to a great place. Now that you understand what our goals were, letís talk about the things we are hearing from you.

Changed / Missing Objectives
This feedback was most commonly expressed from PvPíers who saw a daily objective for winning a Warzone, but not one for participating. Our plan to combat the old systemís homogenization was to spread out all Objectives. This week may not have participation as an Objective, but it isnít gone, it is just in a different Conquest. However, this information was not clear and breaks too far from the old system.
Plan: We are going to add a repeatable GSF and Warzone Participation Objective into all Conquest weeks. This will go into our next patch (possibly next week).

Objective Points Too Low
With the rebalance to Conquest Objectives, there is a general sense that completing your Personal Conquest takes too long and by proxy, Guild Invasions as well.
Plan: We are going to lower the Personal Conquest target to 15,000 per week (down from 20,000). We are also adjusting the Planetary Yield Targets to be:
  • Small is now 200,000 (down from 460,000)
  • Medium is now 550,000 (down from 1,380,000)
  • Large is now 1,130,000 (down from 2,530,000)
    • This will happen in our next patch (possibly next week).

Crafting Changes Too Harsh
Crafting in Conquests was just too good prior to 5.8. There is a feeling though that we cut a bit too deep on its overall impact to Conquests. The War Supply schematics were combined which made them harder to craft, and their point contribution went down, even with the added functionality of being able to consume them.
Plan: We are going to give it some time and monitor the impact of these changes, and then we will make any needed adjustments in 5.9 or beyond.

Large Yield Target Rewards Arenít Good Enough
We are seeing concerns that the Large (and possibly Medium) Yield rewards simply arenít good enough to warrant the extra points required. That this may cause most Guilds to simply filter down into Small Yields, which is counter-productive to the goal of getting Guilds to split a bit by Guild size.
Plan: This is something we are sensitive to but without seeing actual participation data around Conquests, we are hesitant to make changes just yet. We will monitor in the coming weeks and make any needed changes in 5.9 and beyond.

New UI Confusion
There definitely is some confusion around the iconography in the new UI, especially for Objectives. For quick reference right now, Yellow icon means infinitely repeatable, Blue means daily repeatable, no icon means once per week.
Plan: With 5.9 we will be adjusting some text along with adding tooltips to ensure that is a bit clearer. Weíre also going to be swapping the yellow/blue to be consistent with the rest of the game. In addition, weíll be adding some additional fly text for Conquest Objective completion.

Punishing to Alts // Legacy
With the rebalance of Objective points and the reclassification of some Objective types, there is some concern over the ability for a player with multiple characters in a Legacy to be competitive in Conquests. Additionally, there are similar concerns for folks with characters within a Legacy in more than one Guild.
Plan: One initial step to resolve this is the lowering of the Conquest targets as highlighted above. Also, by adding more repeatable Objectives (like PvP participation) as noted, this should give players more ways to gain points and make it easier to achieve targets. Beyond that we will continue to monitor data and your feedback to seek other possible changes in 5.9 and beyond.

That is most of the major points of feedback we have seen coming in regarding the Conquest revamp, but we know it isnít everything. Let us know your thoughts on the changes we have planned. Also, even after these changes are out the door please keep your feedback coming. We are committed to getting Conquests to be enjoyable, challenging, and rewarding.

Thanks everyone!

-eric
Sorry this is not enough, considering that everything on this list should have been weeded out in testing or discussed before release. If feedback was truly valuable we'd have been informed in detail before the update, not after the fact.
The only concrete positive thing is the reintroduction of repeatable pvp conquest objectives, but there's no mention of the reward points. This is still worrying.

The UI needs to differentiate between once per legacy and once per toon, the objectives are very buggy in that respect now. Did you not think this distinction existed? Was this tested at all?
Crafting is inconsistent. Biochem uses old recipes still. Biochemists will exploit this for conquest. Crafting with the new recipes is atrociously expensive. This needs to be reverted back now, not in May or later.

On lowering targets, again, did you test this at all? Did you even do the math?

Final note on your other post, not quoted. "Perhaps next week or in 5.9 or after that maybe" is not a clear timetable. Really now.

Revert conquest back.
This is a failure.

KendraP's Avatar


KendraP
03.22.2018 , 03:56 PM | #69
Quote: Originally Posted by EricMusco View Post

The Conquest Revamp Ė Goals
We had a few things in mind that we wanted to address as we moved from the old system into the new one. First and foremost were rewards. This includes ensuring that the new system delivers the rewards you earn, but also increasing the overall rewards for participating in Conquests. Here are is what you receive now when you and your Guild complete a conquest:
  • A large amount of Credits and CXP via completion of Objectives
  • Personal rewards, including crafting materials, credits, and more
  • Invasion rewards, including crafting materials, credits, Encryptions, and more, which is now rewarded to all Guilds who meet the invasion target.
  • Access to the Fleet vendor which sells special decos and the Master Compendium (Companion Influence boost)
Point 1, getting credits and cxp: ok its nice, i admit that Musco. I'd also rather it continue to be relatively easy to cap alts and get more encryptions.
Point 2, personal rewards: this is the same as it was before.
Point 3, the fleet vendor: the stuff he sells is really cool, I admit. However, i object to some of thr crafting requirements being on the decos. I'll explain my reasoning in my section on crafting.

Quote:
Here are some of the other areas we were aiming to address:
  • Objectives and their points Ė Conquests are meant to be an activity that someone can work on throughout the week as they play the game. Previously, Conquests were very homogenized in that there was very little diversity among each week. We used this opportunity to spread out what objectives were available in each Conquest.
  • Crafting - Crafting is a key part of Conquests, and we certainly did not want to remove that. However, we know the use of War Supplies and crafting was contributing too much to the overall competition of Conquests. For that reason, we reduced the overall effectiveness of Crafting, but added new functionality to War Supplies that they can be consumed to add Conquest points. Allowing you to get points out of them twice if you want, or you could craft them on one character and then move them to other characters to gain conquest points.
  • Yield Targets Ė Competition among different sized Guilds has always been a problem in Conquests. We introduced yield targets to assist in separating out Guilds by various sizes, as they have differing targets and rewards.
  • Interface Ė We gave the interface a facelift (as outlined in the other post) to make it easier to find activities you may want to complete.
Point 1, objectives and points: i personally (and i seriously doubt anyone else except apparently you guys) had an issue with there being a lot of "homogenized" objectives. It allowed players to xap their toons, their way. Currently it feels like you are trying to force a particular playstyle on us. Doing 134 battle of ilum fps, for instance, is certainly not my playstyle.

Point 2, crafting: ohh boy, Musco. This is strike one. I personally am fine with crafting being less effective... for conquest! This unnanounced change nerfed making war supplies into the ground which also nerfed invasion forces, which ironically is one of the most effective means of conquest capping! Seriously throw away 39 invasion forces that many guilds probably had stashed away somewhere to cap an alt or run that alt through battle if ilum? I wonder Musco. Furthermore, this did not just hurt crafting for conquest. Since you made this change entirely unnanounced (I'm assuming to avoid stockpiling), my guild crafter is now left with literal hundreds of isotopes I and another guildie gave him to make dark projects for encryptions. Seriously, Musco, the lack of communication on this is the real issue. We most definately should have known of these changes ahead of time, that way we could have used the exotic isotopes. Which brings me back to the companion compendium - whatever thing. If you were worried about people using old mats to get it, maybe, i dunno, choose a new one! But don't screw you players over WITHOUT even warning them.

Point 3, yield target: as i said in my main feedback, this was a good idea. I'll get to why the execution was terrible in a minute.

Point 4, interface: needs some explanation. What is spammable, what is daily per legscy?
Quote:
Your Feedback
We never saw this revamp as being a perfect change out of the gates, but it is a first step for us in crafting an improved Conquest system. Your feedback is incredibly valuable as we can immediately start making changes to get things to a great place. Now that you understand what our goals were, letís talk about the things we are hearing from you.

Changed / Missing Objectives
This feedback was most commonly expressed from PvPíers who saw a daily objective for winning a Warzone, but not one for participating. Our plan to combat the old systemís homogenization was to spread out all Objectives. This week may not have participation as an Objective, but it isnít gone, it is just in a different Conquest. However, this information was not clear and breaks too far from the old system.
Plan: We are going to add a repeatable GSF and Warzone Participation Objective into all Conquest weeks. This will go into our next patch (possibly next week).
How "repeatable" is "repeatable" Musco? One per day is still not good enough. This is something that should be spammable or awarded for getting the daily. The weekly too, i might add. Also you go off on this "homogenization" again, then later in the thread post this gem:
Quote: Originally Posted by EricMusco View Post
Good question, Flashpoints are in that list as well. Basically, here are the Objectives that should be consistent for content in every Conquest:
  • Group Finder: Operations
  • Group Finder: Flashpoints
  • PvP: Participation and Winning
  • GSF: Participation and Winning
It was a bug that this wasn't the case for the Gree Conquest. Let me find out the details on if this is an issue with other Conquests or not and if it is, when it will be addressed.

-eric
So what exactly was the intention? And what is it now? Will we have spammable pve and pvp content every week or is it always going to be run the one of your choosing 134 times.

Going forward on this: are you looking for less "homogenization" or more ability to get points for doing what we want. Was this lack of stuff a bug or an attempt at less "homogenization?" I really don't understand how it could be both.

Also fyi: less "homogenization" is almost as "exciting" as more randomness. If it wasn't obvious from the tone, i think its horrendous.

Quote:
Objective Points Too Low
With the rebalance to Conquest Objectives, there is a general sense that completing your Personal Conquest takes too long and by proxy, Guild Invasions as well.
Plan: We are going to lower the Personal Conquest target to 15,000 per week (down from 20,000). We are also adjusting the Planetary Yield Targets to be:
  • Small is now 200,000 (down from 460,000)
  • Medium is now 550,000 (down from 1,380,000)
  • Large is now 1,130,000 (down from 2,530,000)
    • This will happen in our next patch (possibly next week).
You cut the guild scores in more than half but the personal by a mere 25%?
Currently there are 2 easily spammable things: throwing away invasion forces and spamming battle of ilum.
Invasion forces with full SH bonus: 513 points
20000/513=38.99 --> 39 thrown away currently
15000/513=29.23 --> 30 thrown away new
Battle of ilum with full SH bonus: 150 points
20000/150=133.3 --> 134 runs currently
15000/150=100 --> 100 runs currently
Just as i dont like throwing away any invasion forces, i also have no intention of running 100 battle of ilums to cap an alt.
Therefore, unless points for spammable events are increased, conquest is dead to me. Cut credit and cxp rewards if you feel its too generous.

Quote:
Crafting Changes Too Harsh
Crafting in Conquests was just too good prior to 5.8. There is a feeling though that we cut a bit too deep on its overall impact to Conquests. The War Supply schematics were combined which made them harder to craft, and their point contribution went down, even with the added functionality of being able to consume them.
Plan: We are going to give it some time and monitor the impact of these changes, and then we will make any needed adjustments in 5.9 or beyond.
Musco, you managed to miss the primary protest. These changes were entirely unnanounced! We are now sitting on hundreds of isotopes that on monday could have been flagship encryptions. I told my crafter to hang onto them on the odd chance you might throw us a bone. Is this verification i should just have him vendor them?

Quote:
Large Yield Target Rewards Arenít Good Enough
We are seeing concerns that the Large (and possibly Medium) Yield rewards simply arenít good enough to warrant the extra points required. That this may cause most Guilds to simply filter down into Small Yields, which is counter-productive to the goal of getting Guilds to split a bit by Guild size.
Plan: This is something we are sensitive to but without seeing actual participation data around Conquests, we are hesitant to make changes just yet. We will monitor in the coming weeks and make any needed changes in 5.9 and beyond.
I probably dont care as much here as most, but the crafting decos and purple jawa junk dont really entice me to even consider going for a higher tier. Also 50k credits is quite frankly, chump change considering unlocking a stronghold room is a minimum of 5 million. Sorry if you're "sensitive" but this is causing small guilds to still get stomped on by larger ones. Provided you let me get my encryptions, i really don't care about the achievements. There are some people who do care, however.

Quote:
New UI Confusion
There definitely is some confusion around the iconography in the new UI, especially for Objectives. For quick reference right now, Yellow icon means infinitely repeatable, Blue means daily repeatable, no icon means once per week.
Plan: With 5.9 we will be adjusting some text along with adding tooltips to ensure that is a bit clearer. Weíre also going to be swapping the yellow/blue to be consistent with the rest of the game. In addition, weíll be adding some additional fly text for Conquest Objective completion.
Thanks for the clarification, Musco. Would it really have been difficult to include this ahead of time?

Quote:
Punishing to Alts // Legacy
With the rebalance of Objective points and the reclassification of some Objective types, there is some concern over the ability for a player with multiple characters in a Legacy to be competitive in Conquests. Additionally, there are similar concerns for folks with characters within a Legacy in more than one Guild.
Plan: One initial step to resolve this is the lowering of the Conquest targets as highlighted above. Also, by adding more repeatable Objectives (like PvP participation) as noted, this should give players more ways to gain points and make it easier to achieve targets. Beyond that we will continue to monitor data and your feedback to seek other possible changes in 5.9 and beyond.
Spammable objectives help with this but, as i mentioned in the points section, conquest is dead if it takes 100 battle of ilums to cap an alt. Spammability and points per spam are both relevant.

Quote:
That is most of the major points of feedback we have seen coming in regarding the Conquest revamp, but we know it isnít everything. Let us know your thoughts on the changes we have planned. Also, even after these changes are out the door please keep your feedback coming. We are committed to getting Conquests to be enjoyable, challenging, and rewarding.

Thanks everyone!

-eric[/color]
Oh dont worry, Musco. We will most certainly keep you informed. 14 days. This is a good start, however, not addressing the crafting or points per spam for repeatable events is a major boo boo. Thats 2 strikes Musco.

I also wish to reiterate: mention major changes, especially when something will no longer be attainable or useful (i.e. the exotic isotopes i just spent several thousand blue jawa junk on) at least in the patch notes.

Also credit requirements to pull mods went up, thanks for putting that in the patch notes too.

Thank you for the update, and probably hear from you next week Musco?

ceciltaru's Avatar


ceciltaru
03.22.2018 , 03:58 PM | #70
all in all, the proposed changes are like taking Tylenol to cure your cancer... we'll have to wait and see...

in the mean time, you have effectively killed crafting for conquest, even for non-crafting focused weeks like this one... unless we get our normal War Supply crafting recipes back during those crafting focused weeks, ala the current Biochem bug where you can see all of those old, good recipes.

if you want to keep these changes, then crafting and gathering needs an overhaul in 6.0, and it starts now:
1. I need to be able to craft a whole lot of these assembly components now, especially those silly low-level ones that you require 6 to 8 of per War Supply. I see at least two ways of handling this:
  • a. Per companion, I need a way to set how many items I want them to craft, up to a maximum of 100, 5 max is no longer an option.
  • b. Change the recipe output to be like 10 or 20 items produced, and keep the maximum of 5 crafting items queued. This would also entail updating the assembly component recipe as it wouldn't be economically fair to keep the same materials and increase the output. For example, currently it takes 2 Silica, 2 Desh, and 2 conductive flux to make a single assembly component. if you would increase the output to 10 produced, then the updated recipe would be 20 silica, 20 desh, and 20 conductive flux.

2. switching between a whole bunch of alts in order to get them doing low-level material gathering runs is not fun. most sado-masochists wouldn't want to do this. So the gathering missions need to be overhauled, and I see two good ways to do that.
  • a. increase the amount of items a significant amount, based on their yield type. For example, level 50 influence companion, doing a grade 1 Rich yield mission, takes ~ 1 minute to complete, and nets by default if I remember correctly, 8 items, with a bonus of 2 or 3 items if the companion crits the mission. Tie the output to the character level if you have to, so that a normal leveling character is not producing tons of goods, but the output needs to be increased. That grade 1 Rich Yield, should be dropping at least 50 materials, Bountiful ~ 25, Abundant ~10, Moderate ~5, and the Wealthy ones from found missions should be at least 100 items gained. And yes, if you crit the mission, tie the companions influence into the bonus items, with a level 50 companion doubling the amount. give me a reason to have multiple level 50 companions.
  • b. or i need a way to have that companion queued up for several runs of that gathering mission, except for those found wealthy missions. For example, I want Elara to run the grade 1 scavenging mission "The Junk Armada" 10 times in a row, with the final tally of what she finds presented when the allotted time for running them all is up. I don't need to see 10 reward windows popup. And yes, there would be a max, lets say 10 for now, of how many times that mission can be ran for that companion.
  • c. the existing gathering missions will need to be fixed as well, and missing missions added. for example, grade 4 archaeology is missing the Rich and Abundant Power Crystal missions, and the Bountiful Artifact Fragment mission.
  • d. regarding your mentioning of turning in those War Supplies, which actually is just the Invasion Forces for the Aid the War Effort objective, who in their right mind is going to do this on any type of consistent basis? you need Invasion Forces to create Dark Projects, which are then used to get Flagship pieces as well as some cool decorations. You also need 5 Invasion Forces and some credits to get any of the new decorations available from the conquest vendor. so who is going to be really doing this objective, especially with it being one of the few "infinitely" repeatable objectives?

So theres a few ideas to help fix your blunder with making conquest crafting a thing of the past.