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

TrixxieTriss's Avatar


TrixxieTriss
03.24.2018 , 12:47 AM | #401
Quote: Originally Posted by DavidAtkinson View Post
I still don't understand all this crying over conquest ?

Like who cares about that... The rewards are sub par and the only reason why even reached my cq targets was because I only PVP in this game.

For me it makes no difference if we have conquest or not.

But that's just me it seems. Seems like conquest with sub par rewards is the most important activity in this game...
I was also surprised at the impact it’s had on pvp. I never realised there were so few people who only pvpd for the joy of it. But it’s obvious that we are few and far between.
Conquest is obviously an important part of the game for a majority of the “remaining” people in the game. This patch has affected them greatly which has had a massively negative impact on pvp.
I think you might need to re-evaluate wether you think a good conquest system is needed or not, because without one, it’s obvious we won’t have enough people pvping.
This affects us all, even if you don’t care about conquest. It’s why I am supporting those who want it fixed so badly, I saw instantly this was going to affect pvp and it has.
The only form of protest left to us and one which they understand and pay attention to is to cancel your sub until they fix it. This is what my house hold did. We are only 3 people, but as many more have done the same, it’s made them sit up and pay attention. One person unsubbing doesn’t do anything, but when a lot of people decide to start doing it or a lot threaten to do it, Bioware sit up and pay attention,
There are always threats of unsubbing in this forum, but if more people backed it up with action, it shows it does work,

TrixxieTriss's Avatar


TrixxieTriss
03.24.2018 , 12:51 AM | #402
Quote: Originally Posted by MacCleoud View Post
I know why you are asking. Getting real numbers from them would have been really nice. I did FPs not Wz's but I knew most weeks my daily and completion g the weekly plus 8 wz's would get my conquest for the week no matter the week or the olanet.
Sorry, I knew you did. The reason I responded like that was to illustrate it to the guy I responded to previously.

ShadowGovernator's Avatar


ShadowGovernator
03.24.2018 , 01:20 AM | #403
Quote: Originally Posted by DarthSpuds View Post
Well just got in from 14 hour day at work.

Less than no incentive to do anything Conquest related.

And reading through this post I see three things that 100% areshameful.

1) No further responses from anyone at Bioware - they are clearly in "bury head in sand and hope it goes away" mode.
2) Keith has made no comment / apology.
3) Conquest has not been rolled back to 5.7 version.

Let me remind you Bioware; your stated intentions for this Conquest revamp was to:
1) Make Conquest more varied, fun and enjoyable.
2) Rebalance Conquest Rewards,
3) Improve the chances of Smaller Guilds to be rewarded for their efforts.

Where I work if I had just spent several months and gods alone know how much money on a vanity project that had manifestly failed to meet its own stated goals, and simultaneously caused the company to lose customers, and so revenue - I would have been fired already.

You set your own goals for this Conquest Revamp.
You set and then delayed the release for this update so you could better attain those goals.
You manifestly failed to meet any of those goals you set for yourself.


Honestly, apart from the Command Crate fiasco I can't think of any other MMORPG patch that comes even close to exhibiting this level of incompetence.

All The Best
Unless you want your paying customers to have an unhappy Easter Holiday where no one is playing your broken turd of a conquest system - you better pull your amateur staff together - all two of them - and tell them to roll it back right now.
Do you really want your paying customers to keep hating you - as it turns into your worst PR disaster ever!
Roll it back now!

Lyshar's Avatar


Lyshar
03.24.2018 , 01:47 AM | #404
Quote: Originally Posted by TrixxieTriss View Post
I’m assuming no news by now means we won’t get any and will have to work it out ourselves once the patch hits.

ERIC, can you at least post in the patch notes

1. Will winning PVP matches yield more points than participation?
1a. If so, what is the difference between winning and losing matches?

2. If only doing pvp, how many participation WZs do we need to complete each week to achieve our personal targets?

3. If only doing flash points, how many do we need to do to complete our weekly target.
Very simply put I did the math going by the assumption points per type would be similar (repeatables with a base score lower than 100 per completion). Comparing participation/win ratios to the old and even an example with GSF/WZ ratio to the old...

*coughs*

Warzone participation would likely mean 6 days @ 24 hours/day @ 14 mins and 24 seconds per match (including queue, loading screens, eat, sleep, etc) to barely hit your conquest target.

Safe to say, unless they bring the base back to what it used to be people won't do it. And if it's just participation on a week that would still be working for it. Of course better to do when you do have the full SH bonus, but a new player without strongholds on the old system doing Warzones on a non-PvP week was already having a hard/impossible time.

A GSF win means a base of 85 points after all, cut that in half for participation, and in half again for WZ participation. So I ended up doing the math with a generous 25 base points per WZ, but even if that was 250 people would not find the time. After the SH boost it would be 63 and 625 respectively (rounded up), the old score would then be doable.

If they did restore the old points and repeatables they could likely move the guild target back to 460.000 and up, those scores seemed to be build on the old objective scores.

TrixxieTriss's Avatar


TrixxieTriss
03.24.2018 , 02:01 AM | #405
Quote: Originally Posted by Lyshar View Post
Very simply put I did the math going by the assumption points per type would be similar (repeatables with a base score lower than 100 per completion). Comparing participation/win ratios to the old and even an example with GSF/WZ ratio to the old...

*coughs*

Warzone participation would likely mean 6 days @ 24 hours/day @ 14 mins and 24 seconds per match (including queue, loading screens, eat, sleep, etc) to barely hit your conquest target.

Safe to say, unless they bring the base back to what it used to be people won't do it. And if it's just participation on a week that would still be working for it. Of course better to do when you do have the full SH bonus, but a new player without strongholds on the old system doing Warzones on a non-PvP week was already having a hard/impossible time.

A GSF win means a base of 85 points after all, cut that in half for participation, and in half again for WZ participation. So I ended up doing the math with a generous 25 base points per WZ, but even if that was 250 people would not find the time. After the SH boost it would be 63 and 625 respectively (rounded up), the old score would then be doable.

If they did restore the old points and repeatables they could likely move the guild target back to 460.000 and up, those scores seemed to be build on the old objective scores.
If you want to compare PVP to the old system, it took 40 matches, which isn’t 6 days @ 24 hours a day. I often finished the conquest on multiple Alts and only in pvp,

Like I said, all arm chair maths is assumptions at this point because we do not know what values they will change or add for repeatable pvp, GSF, or FP’s.
Anything else is guess work and open to debate. I personally disagree 100% with your assumption ps about pvp. If I’m wrong, then Bioware may as well not even change the system because it won’t do anything to improve it,
But I’m guessing they are totally stupid and will make it so pvpers can complete the personal targets in under 60 participation matches.

Your post is one massive guess and so extreme that it makes it unbelievable.

All I’ve said and seeming had my intentions questioned, is to ask Bioware to provide some real numbers before the release or atleast put them in the patch notes so they are being transparent. Then we won’t need these sorts of discussions and it makes them look like they aren’t hiding anything.

I’m all for mathematical discussions when people have the facts, but no body but Bioware does until the patch is released. Everything else is supposition and should be not presented as pseudo facts.

Lyshar's Avatar


Lyshar
03.24.2018 , 02:02 AM | #406
Quote: Originally Posted by TrixxieTriss View Post
Actually I’m not sure and nobody else can be either because everything being thrown around is speculation. All the armchair maths being done (for pvp, GSF and FP’s) is based on the currently released system and it is based on one win only, There are also no flashpoints setup in this system, so numbers aren’t even possible to armchair calculate.

What I am asking is reasonable because they never envisioned having more than one win to get points. Which means anything they add in the patch will likely be totally different to what we are seeing or not seeing.

What my household (3 players) would like to know is how many matches or flashpoints will be needed to achieve the personal conquest total if doing only one activity. That is not complaining, that is asking a question of the developers to provide the information they have readily available to them so we don’t have to debate it on the forums and have some community mathematicians work it out for us after it is released.

Some transparency from them would go a long way to restoring some faith. It’s not like we won’t find out within the first 24 hours of it being released. So if they openly offer the information upfront, it looks better for them.

Under the old system, I knew I needed to do 40 WZs to complete my personal conquest target. I just want to know if it will be the same or similar.
Exactly, we are just making educated guesses, maybe the devs took note and double checked the values, or are busy checking them. Lets assume they are checking them, then there's no fault in admitting that either. If they tell us now they are checking them so they can adjust them at least we'd know we might have better scores than assumed.

But if they aren't checking them, what good would it be for them to share it? Simple, we get to run the math and they'd know quickly if we doubt the numbers are right, then they could still check them monday and adjust a table, sending us a little noticification to let us know they are changing the numbers.

It would either way be a step to fixing the damage done to relations.

Lyshar's Avatar


Lyshar
03.24.2018 , 02:18 AM | #407
I looked specifically at the one repeatable we did have in 5.8, a GSF WIN for 85 points. Maybe some points I used as a baseline were off, but a GSF participation did use to be 500 points and a WZ participation 250 points. So if we are generous and say both GSF and WZ participations are equal to that win it would still be 177 matches without SH, 71 with the 150% bonus, and that is with the 15.000 point for personal goal.

If you count 15 minutes per match and that you may keep missing the next match because there aren't exact team numbers playing, you'll have to play for a good 35 hours WITH full SH bonus, which is an average of 6 hours per day still. Forgive me for rounding the numbers here and there.

With wins in GSF that is still less than is actually needed (because I counted with the 15.000, not the current 20.000), so I don't think it'll be that unbelievable to assume the participation scores will be even worse. That's why it's good to bring forth the possibility. But yes, if they'll give actual numbers I'll use those, they have given no indication those will be altered yet however, so until I receive information that those numbers aren't that bad I'm assuming they will be lower than the win scores. But no guess will be that they are higher.

Lyshar's Avatar


Lyshar
03.24.2018 , 02:29 AM | #408
Of course in all this we are assuming it's a repeatable participation objective. But the wording they used can be as simple as a one off participation weekly reward. - It just will be there everyone conquest.

MorseGod's Avatar


MorseGod
03.24.2018 , 02:38 AM | #409
Repeatable Objectives
Throughout most of the week, tasks with the blue / silver repeatable icons showed up as Complete across my legacy if I completed them with one character. Now they seem to be randomly resetting as I switch toons. Are they intended to be once per character per day, once per legacy per day, or do they just reset on timers that haven't been published?

Event Times
It seems you guys have decided to go back to the failed idea of conquest events ending in the middle of the day instead of coinciding with the server's start and end times for the day. This really serves no purpose other than to create unnecessary confusion for players trying to plan their activiites. Your game needs to be on a uniform timer every day / week so that we don't need spreadsheets to tell us when particular activities start, end, or reset.
Guildmaster, Help (Star Forge)
Was this post helpful? Please click my referral link.

PennyAnn's Avatar


PennyAnn
03.24.2018 , 03:18 AM | #410
Quote: Originally Posted by DavidAtkinson View Post
I still don't understand all this crying over conquest ?

Like who cares about that... The rewards are sub par and the only reason why even reached my cq targets was because I only PVP in this game.

For me it makes no difference if we have conquest or not.

But that's just me it seems. Seems like conquest with sub par rewards is the most important activity in this game...
If you only PvP in this game (unless you only play ranked) I wager you will see an affect to your game play due to the changes to conquest in the form of much slower queue times and fewer people playing PvP.

Conquest isn't about the rewards really, except for the encryptions - but even that is not why most people do it. Honestly, an unlocked flagship adds nothing of any significance to a guild apart from a sign that they've had some money to throw around unlocking it, decorating it, etc. Still, it's something that most guilds aim to complete so that portion of the rewards is still meaningful.

The encryptions are also still meaningful to the NiM community, particularly those who do sales runs. They are used to craft nightmare crystals.

But I would argue that the majority don't participate for the rewards (or at least the bulk of the rewards).

For most people, I think Conquest is about having a thread to follow that gives you a reason to play the parts of the game that are old, tired, and boring. It doesn't make them more exciting in and of themselves, but there is a competition tied to them that can be exciting if you are a competitive type and it gives guilds a framework of group activities to plan and execute. It's structure.

Many guilds would not run Group Finder operations if not for Conquest. There are still plenty that will, as the CXP and Command Crate rewards for last boss lockouts is still one of the fastest/best/easiest ways to farm it. Many players would not play PvP, GSF, or run Flashpoints and Heroics that we've been repeating over and over thousands of times without Conquest. Some may still enjoy those modes of play, but the number of people who participate in them is definitely boosted by Conquest.

It's a reason to replay old parts of the game and continue to play a game whose development rate is molasses. The competition between guilds, and even inside guilds to see who can score the highest is reason enough for many people. Not everyone certainly, and obviously not you. But for many, it's the framework that keeps us going when we don't have new operations, new storylines, new planets to explore, or anything else in the way of new content to play.

It has almost never been about the rewards, by and large. Materials Decos that are of such limited use, a pittance of credits via a token that you immediately vendor, and a crafting material that largely goes unused since more than a year ago (and wasn't all that high in demand then) are not the real motivators. Jawa scrap is nice, and the encryptions are helpful to growing guilds or as a commodity to sell - but the main draw for many (not all, but many) is just the competition. Winning a planet. Getting in the top 10 and competing to work your way up the board.

Much of the tired, old, outdated content will sit under utilized without it (or be untouched entirely by all but a handful of people who are dedicated die-hards of that form of play). More so than most realize, including Bioware.

It's a reason to keep coming back for many, and a reason to keep playing the game despite the slow cadence of new content release. Without it, it's one less reason to log in. It may not matter to you, but 80+ pages in one thread and 40+ pages in another in a matter of 3 to 4 days should indicate that plenty of people care about it, even if you don't.

.
Do not correct a fool or he will hate you; correct a wise man, and he will appreciate you.
Click here to use my Referral Link