Data over feedback/customer

The epitome of "CompanyCentric"

The company gone with what's proven to make money. The customer goes with emotion and changes their mind frequently.

If their approach to change is multiple incremental course corrections, why did they nuke conquest from orbit to begin with? The two approaches really don't jibe with each other. Their stated goals only warranted the little tweaks you are talking about, but they burned it to the ground and are now very slowly building it back up. The policy of breaking things big and fast yet fixing things small and slow is detrimental to the game. Do they really feel like this game is so healthy right now that they can sacrifice players to someones pet vanity project?

They change the whole structure and expectations because the old system was beyond broken and unbalanced. I think that's an obvious.

This is a bit unfair IMO (and maybe I misunderstand the nuance). Even assuming all the feedback is hyperbolic, and ego-centric (which I don't believe to be true for the vast majority), the issue here is that an imperfect system was changed to an objectively worse system with no clear upside to anyone. And the longer that goes under- (or un-) acknowledged by the devs, the louder and more hyperbolic the feedback gets. But it's totally reasonable to say "put things back the way they were" or "tell us why we're wrong and you're right about this new system". Simply continuing to repeat the broken record of "just learn to adapt" is the only thing I think is unreasonable here...

We are largely in agreement, again. [nuance is a thing in my writing, and I recognize that it is sometimes not understood] The exception where I guess we disagree being I see too much rhetoric in the Conquest threads, but you seem to be OK with it (at least to some level I am not sure I comprehend). I get it.. some people are really upset about how they did the new Conquests... but it does not justify the severe rhetoric some are plowing. But we (collectively) make more progress on influencing the studio to listen to ideas and actually embrace them if we keep things out of the gutters in the discussion and stay objective rather then emotionally-bent or demanding.

For example... saying you (the generic, not you personally) would like things put back the way they were vs demanding they do and do it now or else. Not to mention.. they won't put things back the way they were so it really is a non-starter... so the more objective approach would be to itemize things that are clearly deficient and ask-for/suggest changes and stop fighting each other over every little thing in the ongoing discussion. And yes, I recognize we have pretty much a single individual in the various threads inflaming peoples already raw nerves over Conquests as it stands right now... rather then saying their peace and them letting others say theres.

Specific to this thread though.. I really do not feel we needed yet another thread demanding more information. I think that has been covered already in depth in the other threads. All this thread does is invite a doubling down in the forum warfare about Conquests.

Any rational person would freely admit that the system as released was poorly implemented. Certainly, we as players need to look any new or updated content to determine if it is worth our time and effort or not. Personally, I refused to follow the GC grind because I and my guild quickly analyzed what was released and saw we could get 90% there through crafting and never touch that mess of GC as it was originally released. And frankly.. we did the same with the new Conquests and drew the same conclusion... it's simply not worth our time and effort unless/until they make needed changes (which by now have been presented and discussed/debated at length in the forum) ... so I'm pretty sure the studio knows what players as an aggregate want. Now.. we wait.. to see what the studio does or does not do.

I just do not understand all the heavy rhetoric and demanding that takes place. All it does is turn players against each other in forum discussion. Sometimes it needs to be openly challenged when it reaches absurdity, and other times it's best just ignored in my view. I chimed in today in multiple threads, after being largely silent after my initial inputs, because I really wish all the warfare nonsense would stop and people be mature adults instead of food fighting kids. It drowns out the real discussion points that are actually important to the discussion and what the studio actually needs to hear and wants to hear. Whether they embrace all suggestions, I think it is a given they will not. I do however think they will embrace the key ones that make the most bang for the effort with improvements... but we have some very vocal people here who will condemn anything that is not a 100% fit for what they want/demand.

/two cents.... an then some.

If their approach to change is multiple incremental course corrections, why did they nuke conquest from orbit to begin with? The two approaches really don't jibe with each other. Their stated goals only warranted the little tweaks you are talking about, but they burned it to the ground and are now very slowly building it back up. The policy of breaking things big and fast yet fixing things small and slow is detrimental to the game. Do they really feel like this game is so healthy right now that they can sacrifice players to someones pet vanity project?

They almost always do it this way. You don't have to like it (I don't) but to act surprised by it is kind of (and I mean this respectfully) naïve and just setting ones self up for frustration.

Note: I am not supporting what they did or how in any way... I am simply being pragmatic. Their approach with Conquests is largely a repeat of GC rollout, and several other major things they have done over the years. There are plenty of other things to do in game without touching this mess until it gets properly cleaned up. And yes.. I understand some players will not agree with my approach.. but for me.. I simply will not give a game and it's studio that power over my gaming enjoyment. This is precisely why I feel it is important to diversify your play in any MMO.. because on any given day... if you are over-invested in one particular facet of an MMO.. you are holding your foot over a banana peel. Personally, I diversify my play across multiple MMOs too.. as does about half of my guild.

As for it being declared "detrimental" ..... not in my view. It's not prudent, and it causes unnecessary anxiety in the player base... but detrimental is an over-reach in my view and unneeded rhetoric.

As for it being declared "detrimental" ..... not in my view. It's not prudent, and it causes unnecessary anxiety in the player base... but detrimental is an over-reach in my view and unneeded rhetoric.

I personally think any change that reduces the enjoyment a large number of players have in a game is detrimental to that game. Clearly the changes to conquest have greatly diminished a lot of players enjoyment in SWtOR, so I don't think referring to it as detrimental is a reach.

I think you and I also might be using different definitions of rhetoric. I'm used to rhetoric being considered a natural part writing.

We are largely in agreement, again. [nuance is a thing in my writing, and I recognize that it is sometimes not understood] The exception where I guess we disagree being I see too much rhetoric in the Conquest threads, but you seem to be OK with it (at least to some level I am not sure I comprehend). I get it.. some people are really upset about how they did the new Conquests... but it does not justify the severe rhetoric some are plowing. But we (collectively) make more progress on influencing the studio to listen to ideas and actually embrace them if we keep things out of the gutters in the discussion and stay objective rather then emotionally-bent or demanding.

 

...

Yep, I've learned to pay close attention to your posts because they're smart and I often miss the nuance on quick reading. I do agree the rhetoric could be dialed down. A combination of factors are contributing to that such as dev silence (relatively speaking) and severe trolling and flamebait. So much could be done to address both of those factors with even one simple, contrite dev post (not defensively written) that says, e.g. "we realize we screwed up. We tried to do something good and it didn't work the way we wanted. We will fix it ASAP and get the game back to something you all love." If we got that, I, for one, would stand here and staunchly defend them while they worked it out.

Instead we get posts like "we're close to where we'd like to be but we know we have a some minor tweaks to make that we'll do once we do more monitoring." To some, this seems like it's the same thing. It's not. This drives many people insane because it downplays the severity of the catastrophe that is conquest - and, so that I'm totally clear on this, it's a COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE CATASTROPHE (how's that for toned down? ). Unlike level sync, or even GC, this one has no legitimate purpose (as rolled out currently and possibly still even with the 5.9 changes) for any party - devs, players, no one.

So I think most of the rhetoric comes from a good place - people want to like, even love, this game and the studio seems to be trying hard to prevent that from happening. We want to help them. We want to support them. But they need to, occasionally, give us a bit more credit as a collective. Still I agree that we get nowhere when the conversations devolve into "devs suck" and all that nonsense. Nor does attacking one another (as the trolls would like us to do), help anything...

I personally think any change that reduces the enjoyment a large number of players have in a game is detrimental to that game. Clearly the changes to conquest have greatly diminished a lot of players enjoyment in SWtOR, so I don't think referring to it as detrimental is a reach.

 

I think you and I also might be using different definitions of rhetoric. I'm used to rhetoric being considered a natural part writing.

Banning hackers and fixing heavily exploited bugs are known to have the same effect - taking away fun from the players involved. And there is a lot of grey area between what is hacking and exploiting, and what is intended, even after this many years. I, personally, would think cleaning up exploits and hacks is not detrimental to the game. There were aspects of the old conquest system (a prominent aspect at that) that allowed for a broken, exploitable system. While it may remove entertainment from the playerbase, it is a necessary change to keep the system stabilized and running in the best interest of players, even if many dont agree.

Yep, I've learned to pay close attention to your posts because they're smart and I often miss the nuance on quick reading. I do agree the rhetoric could be dialed down. A combination of factors are contributing to that such as dev silence (relatively speaking) and severe trolling and flamebait. So much could be done to address both of those factors with even one simple, contrite dev post (not defensively written) that says, e.g. "we realize we screwed up. We tried to do something good and it didn't work the way we wanted. We will fix it ASAP and get the game back to something you all love." If we got that, I, for one, would stand here and staunchly defend them while they worked it out.

I see a few things wrong here.

1) you cant seriously believe they will post something to the affect of "we screwed up, we are sorry, etc." If you truly believe that is possible, anyone can summarize that you expectations (a long with many others, and on various things pertaining to the game) are way out in left field. I will say with 100% confidence that they will never say that, but it's not because they dont want it. I believe they felt the system was a step in the right direction, and they were doing right by the players with these changes. Maybe you are dead at on believing they are trying to ruin the game. That's your choice. History of life shows that things often aren't received as well as intended, so they had no way, ever, to know what type of response they will receive after release of any patch in the past or in the future.

2) if they reverse the system or retract in any way, it will open floodgates for additional criticism, plus it will likely receive similar backlash from the part of the population that actually appreciates the changes. As I've said before, many people dont see outside their own bubble, and there are quite a few people who are now fully engaged in conquest due to the changes, when they generally didn't enjoy pre5.8.

First I lol'd at your comment. But after reading his second post, I think you're on to something. Keep invastigating.

 

To the OP: Do you really expect that Keith - or, even more unlikely, Charles - will post here in the forum during Eric's absence unless absolutely necessary (e g. patch notes)? They have CommunityDroidEN for that, as announced by Eric.

Responding here would cut too much into his time working on anthem.

I have played the new conquest every week it has been out. I have said there were ideas i thought were good (like the planet split) that felt poorly executed.

 

snip

Here i wish to focus on what Lhance is getting at - appease us in a very simple way. Many of us have the same concerns and there are literal hundreds of pages of info. At least acknowledge our existence more than once a week.

It is looking like they have been outsourcing their programming changes and they have no idea what the changes will be of when they will be. So they just ignore their customers and hide till they can release a patch warning. They are as surprised as we are at the changes.

I think the "idea" if what they implemented was good. They have re-written the back end of the conquest system and created a new category. They obviously put things in the wrong categories. The changes they have published for 5.9 are pretty good for the PvP side. You should be able to get your PC with 20 games. This is assuming you get the 50/100/150 enemy kills and the 3/5 GF activities 1 time on your tune. This will make it a little more strategic than in the past because you have to watch your kills and make sure you get them in the right order for multiple toons. This doesn't put FP's back where they were since the critical missions are now in the one time accomplishment section.

However, with the new backend, I would "assume" they could easily change the category on and objective and change the points totals fairly easily (this assumption is based off how quickly they came up with the new objectives and numbers after our rants on 5.8). With that, I think the adjustments will come a hell (can i say that here?) of a lot quicker than with the GC tweaks they made.

I like what they have with the new system. I don't like the numbers or where they categorized everything, but that is a matter of them tweaking things.

I think you and I also might be using different definitions of rhetoric. I'm used to rhetoric being considered a natural part writing.

Interesting seqway, so let's expand on this a bit.

Like many things rhetoric can be used for good or for bad intent. As an analogy, a knife can be used to prepare food OR cause harm.

In terms of rhetoric in gaming forums...... It is the how (and the motive behind it), more so than the what.

The definition I apply in using the term in the context of gaming forums (internet discussion in general in fact) is:

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

"all we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric"

 

synonyms: bombast, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, pomposity, extravagant language, purple prose; More

It is not difficult to observe that the above definition is quite common in the forum... and cannot be disregarded. It is also very destructive to discussion due to it's inflammatory nature. It is the "weaponized" form of rhetoric and is very divisive. It is very tribal and vindictive.

That said... the more positive use of rhetoric would be defined as:

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

 

synonyms: oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words

This particular approach in the use of rhetoric does exist in the forum, but it is much less common because it requires actual forethought and intention to bring people together on an issue rather then press tribal divisiveness (us vs them). There is no lashing out, no emotional outburst, and no demanding.

While some people may not understand the difference (or care) ... the difference is very real and it is not really difficult to see which version of rhetoric is being applied when a person posts.. particularly when you observe what they are saying in multiple posts. One is selfish and the other is in most cases largely selfless. Very different, with very different outcomes.

Personally, I prefer people stop all the condemnation and "us VS them" nonsense, and actually productively discuss and explore together when topics come up for discussion. It is completely OK to agree to disagree in my view, as long as we keep out of the tribal ditches that so often get dug in discussions.

If we as an aggregate player base really want to influence positive change in the state of the game.... the tribal version of rhetoric IS NOT the way to go about it in my view as it just makes everyone anxious through the discussion process, and it makes it harder for the studio to separate the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak.

Honestly.. collectively as players in forum discussion.. we are often our own worst enemies....collectively speaking.

Note: The above two definitions of the term come directly from the Oxford Dictionary.

I think the "idea" if what they implemented was good. They have re-written the back end of the conquest system and created a new category. They obviously put things in the wrong categories. The changes they have published for 5.9 are pretty good for the PvP side. You should be able to get your PC with 20 games. This is assuming you get the 50/100/150 enemy kills and the 3/5 GF activities 1 time on your tune. This will make it a little more strategic than in the past because you have to watch your kills and make sure you get them in the right order for multiple toons. This doesn't put FP's back where they were since the critical missions are now in the one time accomplishment section.

 

However, with the new backend, I would "assume" they could easily change the category on and objective and change the points totals fairly easily (this assumption is based off how quickly they came up with the new objectives and numbers after our rants on 5.8). With that, I think the adjustments will come a hell (can i say that here?) of a lot quicker than with the GC tweaks they made.

 

I like what they have with the new system. I don't like the numbers or where they categorized everything, but that is a matter of them tweaking things.

A very good assessment, in my view.

While many people criticize the studio for their poor communications... the one thing I personally wish the studio would do is be more thoughtful and precise in how they deploy new content or revised content. Putting together a new system of content and then failing to set the parameters (ie: numbers, rewards, effort curve, diversity of options, etc.) largely undermines the actual objective of new content. Just one example of this is the terribad way they set CXP rewards when they released GC originally. It very much appeared that they put "place holder" values in everywhere and then forgot to actually tune them to reflect actual effort and difficulty for the player before going live. One could assume it was deliberate and that they would tune it as they go... but that too is a bad approach and personally I don't buy that it was deliberate. It clearly was done carelessly and it had a profound effect on a wide segment of the player base.

If there is any lesson the studio needs to learn from how GC released (Keith... this is for you to read and embrace please) .... be much more mindful and thoughtful about how you set the pacing and rewards for content progress AND... do so in a diverse and balanced manner across all content. Don't do things that encourage or demands players play particular content in order to progress in the most efficient manner. Efficiency means nothing if what you are forced to do is content you really do not enjoy. Clearly.... the studio, even under Keith, has not learned the lessons of GC... because they basically did the exact same thing with the new Conquests 18 months later.

The studio would not need to be wrapped around the axle yet again with players and have to spend weeks or months slowly adjusting things if they had largely worked out proper set points on things BEFORE releasing the content. So it would be a win for the players AND a win for the studio if they would get ahead of the curve on things like this. It would be a win for the studio because doing something right the first time is generally more efficient use of resources and assets rather then expending more resources after the fact (which further delays use of those resources on additional new content). This is project management 101, and generally speaking my view is the studio sucks at project management. I am more critical in this reagard, having been a project management professional for more then 20 years before I retired.

It very much appears that they apportion out work tasks and then leave them to run and bring them all together at the end... and then realize they have issues but it's too late to address them before release. I read the studio as working most of it's work tasks very much "open loop" which is a disaster waiting to happen when it comes time to release to the players. Evidence: Exhibit A - Galactic Command Exhibit B - New Conquests.

Never enough time and resources to do something substantially right the first time, but always time and resources to do things over again. Penny wise, pound foolish is the meme that comes to mind here.

To Keith: respectfully..... you can do better as Producer here. Get yourself some world class project management resources that can plan and deploy work packages to the appropriate staff AND follow-up, review, and adjust on short intervals to a master plan throughout the development effort. You as producer run the master plan, but as with everything in life, the devil is in the details and you cannot leave it to the development staff to manage the details in isolation and in the absence of a key resource to keep everyone on plan and integrated as they move forward. You need good project management.. because that is NOT the job of the engineering and software professionals (who are the actual implementers). I'm not you, but if I was.... I would make sure I had an extremely good project management professional (or several depending on the size of the effort) that will drive the details (particularly balance and scaling for fairness across the different content) in a persistent manner to your master plan... and across all segments of your studio team.... including player advocacy and QA. All of this is predicated on you having a coherent master plan too.. but that is a separate discussion entirely.

Responding here would cut too much into his time working on anthem.

The cynicism is NOT helpful here.

Hello Charles and Keith! Since Eric has been gone, we have not had any news on what is happening with 5.9 or if any new changes were being considered after so much feedback was given by the players here on the forums.

 

Are there any plans to remove the heavy-handed legacy restrictions that are forcing players to have to play only one character to maximize the conquest gains? Will the value points be bumped up regarding conquests completed?

 

Prior to 5.8, players had much more flexibility and could work on conquest with alts freely which created much more activity in WZs, FPs, as well as OPs because the player was not punished by having to choose what character to gain conquest on.

 

This is just one issue with the new conquest system players have pointed out, and if you have read the feedback in the two official feedback threads created by Eric, you'd see in much more detail what concerns the players have with the new conquest system.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=946784

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=946305

 

Please let us know what is going on regarding conquest, and thank you for your time.

on vuulks stream they confirmed legacy restrictions are not going anywhere

The cynicism is NOT helpful here.

Pointing out cynicism is NOT helping here. Sorry Andryah, I found your comment immensely amusing.

On a more serious note, looking forward to some communication from Keith or Charles seeing Eric has gone AFK for a month or so.

Our weekly update is about due, and none have come to get us up to speed on the 5.9 incoming changes to conquest or the possible changes incoming to tanks! These are important issues for many players.

Pointing out cynicism is NOT helping here. Sorry Andryah, I found your comment immensely amusing.

On a more serious note, looking forward to some communication from Keith or Charles seeing Eric has gone AFK for a month or so.

 

Our weekly update is about due, and none have come to get us up to speed on the 5.9 incoming changes to conquest or the possible changes incoming to tanks! These are important issues for many players.

But not holding your breath I hope. That could cause you to look very smurfish after a few minutes.

I agree that both players and studio would benefit by more communication from them regarding forward progress on adjusting Conquests.... but given historical patterns... this is when they go quiet.... rather than being more communicative. I'm not sure why they go that route.. but it is their pattern of behavior. We don't have to like it, but there is literally nothing any of us can do about it really.

I do think that if we have less drive by cynical posting, less negative rhetoric, and more ongoing productive discussion we are more likely to see Keith chime in. That too is an established pattern of the studio in my view.

I agree that both players and studio would benefit by more communication from them regarding forward progress on adjusting Conquests.... but given historical patterns... this is when they go quiet.... rather than being more communicative. I'm not sure why they go that route.. but it is their pattern of behavior.

True we both agree on that, probably more frustrating for me isn't even the changes but the lack of communication before and after significant changes are made to the game. This really, really irks me.

I personally think any change that reduces the enjoyment a large number of players have in a game is detrimental to that game. Clearly the changes to conquest have greatly diminished a lot of players enjoyment in SWtOR, so I don't think referring to it as detrimental is a reach.

 

I think you and I also might be using different definitions of rhetoric. I'm used to rhetoric being considered a natural part writing.

What do you mean? Who cares that most everyone hates the new system and all the queues are dead now, as long as 1 person likes the new system. If that 1 person posts 20,000 posts a day, it may just look like more than 1 person likes it. Problem solved. Really, some people may like to be the only player left on a game, less competition for the heroics and stuff.

True we both agree on that, probably more frustrating for me isn't even the changes but the lack of communication before and after significant changes are made to the game. This really, really irks me.

QFT. It's far and away the most frustrating part about this game, for me. Especially because so much could be rectified with literally 5-10min/day, heck a week, of communication. There is no question that the game has suffered as a direct result of the horrendous communication. But alas, it won't ever change:(...

Interesting seqway, so let's expand on this a bit.

 

Like many things rhetoric can be used for good or for bad intent. As an analogy, a knife can be used to prepare food OR cause harm.

 

In terms of rhetoric in gaming forums...... It is the how (and the motive behind it), more so than the what.

 

The definition I apply in using the term in the context of gaming forums (internet discussion in general in fact) is:

 

 

 

It is not difficult to observe that the above definition is quite common in the forum... and cannot be disregarded. It is also very destructive to discussion due to it's inflammatory nature. It is the "weaponized" form of rhetoric and is very divisive. It is very tribal and vindictive.

 

That said... the more positive use of rhetoric would be defined as:

 

 

 

This particular approach in the use of rhetoric does exist in the forum, but it is much less common because it requires actual forethought and intention to bring people together on an issue rather then press tribal divisiveness (us vs them). There is no lashing out, no emotional outburst, and no demanding.

 

While some people may not understand the difference (or care) ... the difference is very real and it is not really difficult to see which version of rhetoric is being applied when a person posts.. particularly when you observe what they are saying in multiple posts. One is selfish and the other is in most cases largely selfless. Very different, with very different outcomes.

 

Personally, I prefer people stop all the condemnation and "us VS them" nonsense, and actually productively discuss and explore together when topics come up for discussion. It is completely OK to agree to disagree in my view, as long as we keep out of the tribal ditches that so often get dug in discussions.

 

If we as an aggregate player base really want to influence positive change in the state of the game.... the tribal version of rhetoric IS NOT the way to go about it in my view as it just makes everyone anxious through the discussion process, and it makes it harder for the studio to separate the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak.

 

Honestly.. collectively as players in forum discussion.. we are often our own worst enemies....collectively speaking.

 

Note: The above two definitions of the term come directly from the Oxford Dictionary.

Most of my friends are word geeks, so I'm always happy to discuss semantics! The way people use and understand words is critical to understanding a person's meaning, and many words can be used in multiple ways.

The definitions you quoted are not one or the other. The second one is the primary definition (The OED has it listed as 1.) The first one you listed is a sub-category of the first. (The OED has it listed as 1.1 with an indentation.) The etymology of the word bears this out. I suspect whether a person's writing is viewed as simply rhetorical or as empty rhetoric has more to do with the reader agreeing with the writer or not.

With that said, you are right, I have gotten very frustrated with changes to the game that make no sense to me (as a non-business type person) and the lack of anyone at Bioware explaining why these changes are being made. I am fine with change if I understand it, but too many changes have been incomprehensible. I want to believe there are people over at Bioware advocating for the players, but it really doesn't seem like it. So it does, indeed, feel like an us vs. them situation. When I get frustrated I get snarky. I'll try to dial down the snark, but I'll continue to use what ever rhetorical tools are available.

If you wade through the hundreds of pages written about conquest 2.0 you will find a substantial amount of well thought out critiques and suggestions. There is a lot of very good discussion there if you overlook the attempts to derail it.

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

Keith:

How are a lot more guilds receiving rewards when only one or two guilds are hitting the required point totals for large and medium planets? Do you mean that a lot more guilds are hitting only the small yield and therefore getting more rewards than in the previous system? It's confusing to us, too because we look at a scoreboard and see that 8 out of 10 guilds that would have gotten rewards from the previous system will not because they can't hit the points required for large and medium yield planet requirements. So from our vantage point, there are LESS guilds receiving rewards because 8 or more guilds that would have received rewards for two of the available planets are getting nothing.

Another area of confusion for us is this: Do you intend for us to not be able to complete conquest on more than one or two characters per week? You mention the changes to the back end that were necessary to ensure that those who earned rewards received them as we are supposed to, and we appreciate that. But the changes took Conquest in a much different direction on top of fixing the one part that you identify as "broken". Are there other parts of the system that you felt were "broken" and intended to fix with the new changes (too many people getting rewards on alts, playing the game too much in order to earn those rewards with alts, etc.)?

Having an idea of your goals for more than just fixing rewards not going out properly might help us understand where you intend for this system to "land" at the end of the day. When you say you are finally happy with where Galactic Command is, I think most of us can agree with you. What does that look like for Conquest?

Edited to add: Knowing where you want this to go and what your goals are for the system will help us provide you with better feedback after 5.9. I think most of us have accepted that it is not going to be "fixed" as quickly as we'd like it to be, but I think we are definitely still interested in seeing it fixed at some point, even if not as immediately as we hope. In order to help you with that, we need to know more about what you want it to look like so that we can give suggestions that won't be immediately thrown out the window because they are contrary to your design goals. Right now, we see you saying "these are our goals" and yet developing in ways that work opposite to achieving those. Some clarity about that would help us to help YOU. And we would feel more like this was a "discussion" if we had more regular feedback from you guys. Hope this addition helps you understand where we are coming from and opens up a dialogue between us that will see Conquest in a good place eventually.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. It really is important.

.

So, I'm a bit confused. Eric went on vacation just two days ago. Before he left, he provided updates about the changes we're making in 5.9 which is scheduled for release on May 1st.

 

We realize some of you are not happy with the changes we made to Conquests and the 5.9 adjustments will help. As we all know, Conquests were broken and preventing players from receiving rewards which caused a lot of unnecessary frustration, extra Engineering work and wasted time for you and Customer Service. It had to be replaced with a newer and maintainable system.

 

Although it'll take a few updates to get it exactly right, we have not had the same issues with rewards, a lot more guilds are receiving rewards, and there is higher participation overall. However, we also acknowledge that it's more difficult for alternate characters to complete their weekly goals which some of the changes in 5.9 will address.

 

We will continue to review the data and your feedback to determine if additional adjustments are needed. I'm not sure that gives you any additional insight, but we need to release 5.9 to identify further changes.

 

--Keith-

Is it ok that with new conquest system pvp players cant reach the required minimum for conquest rewards even by playing host of pvp matches? Not mentioning alts...