My gripe is that we can't play both Territory Battles.
The GP restriction I can forgive, that's the gate and I'm willing to work with the limitations. They did it with Malak and I'm working my way there. Some people are ok without a restriction because the challenge, the difficulty, of the content is the natural gate and as people try the content they can decide when to move on to higher difficulties.
They may have made the restrictions because it's slated to be end game content, to alleviate frustrations, or some other reasons tied to the fact that the game needs to be profitable and players will pay to play.
However, choosing which Territory Battle to play does not sound fun.
I believe they've already implemented choosing which 2 Galactic Bounties you can complete, of which I am not a fan. Imagine if they made you choose which event to participate in:
Would you choose Grand Master's Training or Emperor's Demise?
What if you had to choose which raid to complete?
Choices are important, but those kinds of choices do not make the game fun.
I don't buy the difficulty curve excuse either. The raids have difficulty tiers of their own, yes, but Rancor is objectively the easiest, then HAAT, with the hardest being HSTR. However, you can still play them all and don't have to choose one and neglect the others.
That's my gripe. I want to be able to play both Hoth and Geonosis Territory Battles.
You want all people to do it even if they would completely fail.
No.
We want all people to have the OPTION of doing it. Nobody's asking to make it compulsory.
Did you simply ignore the rest?
That answers why nobody gets an option
'The rest' being: "Avoiding the complains after, because alot of guild's will be crushed by the difficulty and the amount of GP you will need."?
If so then did you simply ignore all my other comments on this thread and my OP itself? Because I have addressed your point many, many times.
Have an in game warning ...
(and despite what Kyno and others have said, in game warnings do work otherwise why would they be in many other places in the game including today's Military Might event Mythic Tier which says "This event is very, very hard". Why bother with that if it doesn't work?)
... and specify that the design intent is to make this a challenge for the very large guilds and therefore it is believed that smaller guilds will struggle. But cutting off part of the game from us rather than allowing us to explore it and fail, they are hurting smaller guilds which was my original point in the first place.
And are you REALLY saying that this whole GP Requirement is only there to stop people complaining? you don't think people are going to complain anyway?
What if the bare minimum to get 1 star even with all combat completed and platoons filled is 80mill gp? If that’s the case then it seems perfectly reasonable to save guilds from themselves.
Could be be 80 mil for 1 star might even be higher or lower but guessing 80 mil is a good guess to barley get 1* out of 33 so if you could do it with less gp most guilds would snd fail to get any rewards at all so the gp limit i think its fair so players dont get zero rewards hurting there growth.
Doing both with the amount of rewards from hoth and geo giving more/better asleep could cause issues with to many rewards especially GET they normally like to control the growth of players x amount of gear rewards / x amount of gear needed if they give to much rewards with out the higher demand for gear it could csuse an unbalance in the game so options cause the reward structure not to fall apart as bad as running both
With how many players that dont like or complain about tb/pve content running both tbs would cause a large amount of fatigue to those players but the ones who like tb/pve content wont any where as fast get burned out so its limiting it and by giving the choice if u get bored u can swap tb maps and change it up (doubt anyone doing well in geo would unless to max hoth *s) so based on that the option gives options to do.
And to address the "hurting guild's" part.
You only hurting guild's if you let them launch an geo tb, when they aren't ready.
Since we can launch Hoth Or geo, you lose a FULL tb off rewards, by doing geo and losing. That hurts.
That why it is capped and why they want change it.
You can keep saying that a warning helps, it also works in other modes, that failing geo tb isnt a big deal and what not. But it is not true.
Let's assume, for one moment, that we are BOTH right.
Just assuming! I'm not admitting that you are right and I'm certainly not admitting that I am wrong.
But let's consider the situation that we are BOTH right.
On the one hand, we have the Devs shutting out all <80 guilds completely and this hurts them.
AND on the other hand, we have <80 guilds being given a choice between a safe option and an option that hurts them.
In the first instance, <80 guilds get hurt no matter what.
In the second instance, <80 guilds might get hurt but it's THEIR CHOICE.
Instead of the Devs forcing us into a position that will hurt us, we can choose whether or not to hurt ourselves.
Do you want to be forced to smoke a cigarette OR choose to smoke one or not?
Do you want to be forced to be beaten up OR have the option to choose to be beaten up or not?
Do you want to be forced to give me money OR decide for yourself whether you want to give me some money or not?
etc.
How do you define end game? This has been a long conversation and it is hard to define. Many "end game" toons and raid tiers are accomplished by a very wide range of players within a fairly short time after they are released.
New gear and levels are achieved across the board and are always made more accessible as time goes on.
I see this as thier attempt to put a "line in the sand" of what is end game content. Like it or not, this is not a bad thing. If this is a slow evolution into the future of the game it could even be a good thing. This sets goals and helps players make more solid roadmaps of what they need to do to get to "the next tier" in game.
Many players get lost along the way when developing in this game, this could help with that. We also need to remember that from the current information we have it seems like no single reward is locked behind this gate.
Again we have many locks in place already lock content behind some barrier, and those do lock rewards behind them.
About the warning message-
We have no content that has a warning that people do not complain about. This is also the type of event that you cant fail and do the lower tier, you are locked in. This is a different situation than we have seen before, and I think it's nice they are trying to avoid this on the front end.
Again. The cap doesn't hurt anyone, it prevents lower guild's from losing Hoth rewards, by not letting them praticipate in Geo.
The reason is still GP. You don't have enough GP, so you want make it to the first star and lose rewards off ONE Full TB.
Yes it does. It hurts the guild because some players will leave because they think they can elsewhere find a guild that could participate in the new TB, even if they personally don't have a decent GP. This lowers the GP of the guild that was left by even more, making it even harder for them to get to 80 million and thus the cycle repeats.
That therefore hurts the guild.
Your argument is that the guild would get hurt by trying a Geonosis TB because they would get no rewards whereas they could have done on Hoth. Yes?
But the guild chooses which TB to fight and if they end up getting nothing then all they've missed out on is one round of Hoth rewards. That doesn't hurt anyone. Next time, they'll do Hoth again.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
Again. The cap doesn't hurt anyone, it prevents lower guild's from losing Hoth rewards, by not letting them praticipate in Geo.
You know, most of our members are adults who has jobs, children, etc. We all made a couple of much more important decisions than "participate in Geo TB or not" in our life, doing it every day and still live. So we just don't need that type of "protection", thank you.
Also you completely don't understand how low-GP guild live. We have first-hand experience of organizing guilds and try to develop it in current situation (not some time ago when game was young and had much less activities). We explain where and why exactly it will hurt us. Moreother, it ALREADY hurts peoples morale, our top players are very disappointed. But you just don't listen at all and repeat "no, it won't hurt" mantra. Sorry, but such blind ignorance can't be basis for healthy discussion. You don't even trying to understand.
Again. The cap doesn't hurt anyone, it prevents lower guild's from losing Hoth rewards, by not letting them praticipate in Geo.
The reason is still GP. You don't have enough GP, so you want make it to the first star and lose rewards off ONE Full TB.
Yes it does. It hurts the guild because some players will leave because they think they can elsewhere find a guild that could participate in the new TB, even if they personally don't have a decent GP. This lowers the GP of the guild that was left by even more, making it even harder for them to get to 80 million and thus the cycle repeats.
That therefore hurts the guild.
Your argument is that the guild would get hurt by trying a Geonosis TB because they would get no rewards whereas they could have done on Hoth. Yes?
But the guild chooses which TB to fight and if they end up getting nothing then all they've missed out on is one round of Hoth rewards. That doesn't hurt anyone. Next time, they'll do Hoth again.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
So if a small guild can try the content and fail they will not fall apart the same way they would if they cant meet the requirements?
I'm not sure I can agree with that. If they cant complete the content to get meaningful rewards, they will fall apart all the same (if it was going to happen), the reason they cant get to that point seems meaningless if players are willing to leave due to not getting to that point.
How do you define end game? This has been a long conversation and it is hard to define. Many "end game" toons and raid tiers are accomplished by a very wide range of players within a fairly short time after they are released..
But please, please note that I have never once argued that Geonosis should not be very hard. I am all for very hard content for the "end of game" players. In fact I even said earlier in the thread that I would welcome MORE very hard "end of game" content.
But allow everyone to play it! Allow everyone to see for themselves how tough it is.
If I pay a Chess simulator, it might come with 20 different levels of difficulty. I can try level 20 straight away if I want. I will lose badly but I can try it. Nobody would be justified in saying that level 20 should then be easier. It's there for the experts but the beginners can still try it if they want to. There are 19 other levels to try in the meantime.
Why should this game be any different? No Chess simulator says "well, your ELO Chess rating is 1,700 but the programmers reckon you should be 2,000 to try level 20 so we're not going to let you have a go at all".
Surely it should be up to the players to decide if they are willing to risk getting no rewards at all for a Territory Battle?
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
So if a small guild can try the content and fail they will not fall apart the same way they would if they cant meet the requirements?
Maybe they would fall apart but then that would be because of their choice and not something imposed on them by the Devs. Surely you can see the difference? The Devs are currently jeopardising my guild; I'm not. If we have the choice to try the new TB and I choose poorly, time after time after time, then that would be me jeopardising my guild.
In the first case, we don't deserve to fall apart just because the Devs say so. In the second, we would fall apart due to poor leadership.
Do you really not see the difference and why so many people prefer the second option?
Just one Territory Battle? By choice? I think most players can stomach that in the right circumstances.
In fact, I reckon if you were to find one hundred <80M guilds and ask all 5,000 players if they would give up all the rewards from one single Hoth Territory Battle in order to have one shot at Geonosis, the majority would say yes.
Just the once, definitely. I mean regularly? No. But once? Yes.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
So if a small guild can try the content and fail they will not fall apart the same way they would if they cant meet the requirements?
Maybe they would fall apart but then that would be because of their choice and not something imposed on them by the Devs. Surely you can see the difference? The Devs are currently jeopardising my guild; I'm not. If we have the choice to try the new TB and I choose poorly, time after time after time, then that would be me jeopardising my guild.
In the first case, we don't deserve to fall apart just because the Devs say so. In the second, we would fall apart due to poor leadership.
Do you really not see the difference and why so many people prefer the second option?
They are falling apart due to the new content, I see no difference in the reason they choose to use.
Many players choose to stay with thier guild for many reasons when new content comes out, some choose to leave. The reason is a personal choice. The devs make the content, whether it is the difficulty or a gate they place in another way, it is placed by them. That makes leaving solely the players choice, because the gate is there regardless.
They are falling apart due to the new content, I see no difference in the reason they choose to use.
Many players choose to stay with thier guild for many reasons when new content comes out, some choose to leave. The reason is a personal choice. The devs make the content, whether it is the difficulty or a gate they place in another way, it is placed by them. That makes leaving solely the players choice, because the gate is there regardless.
I see a difference. The difference is between having the situation forced upon you as opposed to choosing to create the situation yourself.
And there is also a difference between "you can try if you want but you won't do well" and "we're not going to even let you try".
The "gate", to use your term, is currently locked. If the minimum GP requirement is removed, the gate is unlocked and players can choose whether to try seeing if they are strong enough to open it even if the locksmiths think not. It's still more fun to try than be told "no".
And ultimately, that's what it comes down to; fun.
A lot of the "end of game" players are excited about the new Territory Battle because they have played the current ones for so long that they are bored with them.
A lot of the <80M players are excited about the new Territory Battle because they have played the current ones for so long that they are bored with them.
The first group get to try new stuff. The second group don't even though they have been playing the same Territory Battle for just as long as the first group and are just as bored of it, too.
But because their guild is 79.9M, they have to continue being bored while the 80.1M guild gets to try something new.
But they've all played the same Territory Battles up until now ...
I think that the best way to solve all of the complaints would be that the first time geo tw comes out, they allow you to play both hoth and geo. This would mean that the people who struggle with geo can just finish hoth, and the guilds that can do geo, can. This might need to be stopped after the first day, but it gives smaller guilds proof that they will struggle, hence the 80 mil min.
I agree with the OP, but would like to also add a different perspective. If you as an individual player has a roster that is properly prepared for a more challenging TB, but your guild isn't then you do need to do yourself a huge favor and find a new guild.
When HSTR came out my guild couldn't complete it. I got JTR second passing and developed three decent squads. My guild still wasn't ready for HSTR. I abandoned my guild and it was tough at first, but in hindsight I should have done it a lot sooner.
I agree with the OP, but would like to also add a different perspective. If you as an individual player has a roster that is properly prepared for a more challenging TB, but your guild isn't then you do need to do yourself a huge favor and find a new guild.
When HSTR came out my guild couldn't complete it. I got JTR second passing and developed three decent squads. My guild still wasn't ready for HSTR. I abandoned my guild and it was tough at first, but in hindsight I should have done it a lot sooner.
And so the smaller guilds get hurt by losing players. Thus proving my main point. Thank you.
How do you define end game? This has been a long conversation and it is hard to define. Many "end game" toons and raid tiers are accomplished by a very wide range of players within a fairly short time after they are released..
But please, please note that I have never once argued that Geonosis should not be very hard. I am all for very hard content for the "end of game" players. In fact I even said earlier in the thread that I would welcome MORE very hard "end of game" content.
But allow everyone to play it! Allow everyone to see for themselves how tough it is.
If I pay a Chess simulator, it might come with 20 different levels of difficulty. I can try level 20 straight away if I want. I will lose badly but I can try it. Nobody would be justified in saying that level 20 should then be easier. It's there for the experts but the beginners can still try it if they want to. There are 19 other levels to try in the meantime.
Why should this game be any different? No Chess simulator says "well, your ELO Chess rating is 1,700 but the programmers reckon you should be 2,000 to try level 20 so we're not going to let you have a go at all".
Surely it should be up to the players to decide if they are willing to risk getting no rewards at all for a Territory Battle?
I said nothing about difficulty, difficulty in PvE doesnt really define end game. In most cases the difficulty is over come with a specific set of toons that can be achieved by a wide range of players.
They seem to be trying to set "end game" with a level of development. That's what GP is, it's a measure of how much time and/or $$ the player has invested
In any game about development it's never the players choice, there are always gates. This game is no different, this is just a newer gate that helps define things more clearly.
This is not a chess game, in similar games this is very much the case, yes.
Replies
The GP restriction I can forgive, that's the gate and I'm willing to work with the limitations. They did it with Malak and I'm working my way there. Some people are ok without a restriction because the challenge, the difficulty, of the content is the natural gate and as people try the content they can decide when to move on to higher difficulties.
They may have made the restrictions because it's slated to be end game content, to alleviate frustrations, or some other reasons tied to the fact that the game needs to be profitable and players will pay to play.
However, choosing which Territory Battle to play does not sound fun.
I believe they've already implemented choosing which 2 Galactic Bounties you can complete, of which I am not a fan. Imagine if they made you choose which event to participate in:
Would you choose Grand Master's Training or Emperor's Demise?
What if you had to choose which raid to complete?
Choices are important, but those kinds of choices do not make the game fun.
I don't buy the difficulty curve excuse either. The raids have difficulty tiers of their own, yes, but Rancor is objectively the easiest, then HAAT, with the hardest being HSTR. However, you can still play them all and don't have to choose one and neglect the others.
That's my gripe. I want to be able to play both Hoth and Geonosis Territory Battles.
No.
We want all people to have the OPTION of doing it. Nobody's asking to make it compulsory.
'The rest' being: "Avoiding the complains after, because alot of guild's will be crushed by the difficulty and the amount of GP you will need."?
If so then did you simply ignore all my other comments on this thread and my OP itself? Because I have addressed your point many, many times.
Have an in game warning ...
(and despite what Kyno and others have said, in game warnings do work otherwise why would they be in many other places in the game including today's Military Might event Mythic Tier which says "This event is very, very hard". Why bother with that if it doesn't work?)
... and specify that the design intent is to make this a challenge for the very large guilds and therefore it is believed that smaller guilds will struggle. But cutting off part of the game from us rather than allowing us to explore it and fail, they are hurting smaller guilds which was my original point in the first place.
And are you REALLY saying that this whole GP Requirement is only there to stop people complaining? you don't think people are going to complain anyway?
Doing both with the amount of rewards from hoth and geo giving more/better asleep could cause issues with to many rewards especially GET they normally like to control the growth of players x amount of gear rewards / x amount of gear needed if they give to much rewards with out the higher demand for gear it could csuse an unbalance in the game so options cause the reward structure not to fall apart as bad as running both
With how many players that dont like or complain about tb/pve content running both tbs would cause a large amount of fatigue to those players but the ones who like tb/pve content wont any where as fast get burned out so its limiting it and by giving the choice if u get bored u can swap tb maps and change it up (doubt anyone doing well in geo would unless to max hoth *s) so based on that the option gives options to do.
Let's assume, for one moment, that we are BOTH right.
Just assuming! I'm not admitting that you are right and I'm certainly not admitting that I am wrong.
But let's consider the situation that we are BOTH right.
On the one hand, we have the Devs shutting out all <80 guilds completely and this hurts them.
AND on the other hand, we have <80 guilds being given a choice between a safe option and an option that hurts them.
In the first instance, <80 guilds get hurt no matter what.
In the second instance, <80 guilds might get hurt but it's THEIR CHOICE.
Instead of the Devs forcing us into a position that will hurt us, we can choose whether or not to hurt ourselves.
Do you want to be forced to smoke a cigarette OR choose to smoke one or not?
Do you want to be forced to be beaten up OR have the option to choose to be beaten up or not?
Do you want to be forced to give me money OR decide for yourself whether you want to give me some money or not?
etc.
New gear and levels are achieved across the board and are always made more accessible as time goes on.
I see this as thier attempt to put a "line in the sand" of what is end game content. Like it or not, this is not a bad thing. If this is a slow evolution into the future of the game it could even be a good thing. This sets goals and helps players make more solid roadmaps of what they need to do to get to "the next tier" in game.
Many players get lost along the way when developing in this game, this could help with that. We also need to remember that from the current information we have it seems like no single reward is locked behind this gate.
Again we have many locks in place already lock content behind some barrier, and those do lock rewards behind them.
About the warning message-
We have no content that has a warning that people do not complain about. This is also the type of event that you cant fail and do the lower tier, you are locked in. This is a different situation than we have seen before, and I think it's nice they are trying to avoid this on the front end.
Yes it does. It hurts the guild because some players will leave because they think they can elsewhere find a guild that could participate in the new TB, even if they personally don't have a decent GP. This lowers the GP of the guild that was left by even more, making it even harder for them to get to 80 million and thus the cycle repeats.
That therefore hurts the guild.
Your argument is that the guild would get hurt by trying a Geonosis TB because they would get no rewards whereas they could have done on Hoth. Yes?
But the guild chooses which TB to fight and if they end up getting nothing then all they've missed out on is one round of Hoth rewards. That doesn't hurt anyone. Next time, they'll do Hoth again.
So the options are:
Have a participation requirement and then a lot of smaller guilds will fall apart.
OR
Have no participation requirements, everyone can see first hand what Geonosis is like, guilds lose one round of Hoth rewards.
You know, most of our members are adults who has jobs, children, etc. We all made a couple of much more important decisions than "participate in Geo TB or not" in our life, doing it every day and still live. So we just don't need that type of "protection", thank you.
Also you completely don't understand how low-GP guild live. We have first-hand experience of organizing guilds and try to develop it in current situation (not some time ago when game was young and had much less activities). We explain where and why exactly it will hurt us. Moreother, it ALREADY hurts peoples morale, our top players are very disappointed. But you just don't listen at all and repeat "no, it won't hurt" mantra. Sorry, but such blind ignorance can't be basis for healthy discussion. You don't even trying to understand.
So if a small guild can try the content and fail they will not fall apart the same way they would if they cant meet the requirements?
I'm not sure I can agree with that. If they cant complete the content to get meaningful rewards, they will fall apart all the same (if it was going to happen), the reason they cant get to that point seems meaningless if players are willing to leave due to not getting to that point.
But please, please note that I have never once argued that Geonosis should not be very hard. I am all for very hard content for the "end of game" players. In fact I even said earlier in the thread that I would welcome MORE very hard "end of game" content.
But allow everyone to play it! Allow everyone to see for themselves how tough it is.
If I pay a Chess simulator, it might come with 20 different levels of difficulty. I can try level 20 straight away if I want. I will lose badly but I can try it. Nobody would be justified in saying that level 20 should then be easier. It's there for the experts but the beginners can still try it if they want to. There are 19 other levels to try in the meantime.
Why should this game be any different? No Chess simulator says "well, your ELO Chess rating is 1,700 but the programmers reckon you should be 2,000 to try level 20 so we're not going to let you have a go at all".
Surely it should be up to the players to decide if they are willing to risk getting no rewards at all for a Territory Battle?
Maybe they would fall apart but then that would be because of their choice and not something imposed on them by the Devs. Surely you can see the difference? The Devs are currently jeopardising my guild; I'm not. If we have the choice to try the new TB and I choose poorly, time after time after time, then that would be me jeopardising my guild.
In the first case, we don't deserve to fall apart just because the Devs say so. In the second, we would fall apart due to poor leadership.
Do you really not see the difference and why so many people prefer the second option?
Just one Territory Battle? By choice? I think most players can stomach that in the right circumstances.
In fact, I reckon if you were to find one hundred <80M guilds and ask all 5,000 players if they would give up all the rewards from one single Hoth Territory Battle in order to have one shot at Geonosis, the majority would say yes.
Just the once, definitely. I mean regularly? No. But once? Yes.
They are falling apart due to the new content, I see no difference in the reason they choose to use.
Many players choose to stay with thier guild for many reasons when new content comes out, some choose to leave. The reason is a personal choice. The devs make the content, whether it is the difficulty or a gate they place in another way, it is placed by them. That makes leaving solely the players choice, because the gate is there regardless.
I see a difference. The difference is between having the situation forced upon you as opposed to choosing to create the situation yourself.
And there is also a difference between "you can try if you want but you won't do well" and "we're not going to even let you try".
The "gate", to use your term, is currently locked. If the minimum GP requirement is removed, the gate is unlocked and players can choose whether to try seeing if they are strong enough to open it even if the locksmiths think not. It's still more fun to try than be told "no".
And ultimately, that's what it comes down to; fun.
A lot of the "end of game" players are excited about the new Territory Battle because they have played the current ones for so long that they are bored with them.
A lot of the <80M players are excited about the new Territory Battle because they have played the current ones for so long that they are bored with them.
The first group get to try new stuff. The second group don't even though they have been playing the same Territory Battle for just as long as the first group and are just as bored of it, too.
But because their guild is 79.9M, they have to continue being bored while the 80.1M guild gets to try something new.
But they've all played the same Territory Battles up until now ...
When HSTR came out my guild couldn't complete it. I got JTR second passing and developed three decent squads. My guild still wasn't ready for HSTR. I abandoned my guild and it was tough at first, but in hindsight I should have done it a lot sooner.
And so the smaller guilds get hurt by losing players. Thus proving my main point. Thank you.
To do so would hurt my current guild. Thus proving my original point that this 80M GP requirement would hurt smaller guilds. Thank you.
I said nothing about difficulty, difficulty in PvE doesnt really define end game. In most cases the difficulty is over come with a specific set of toons that can be achieved by a wide range of players.
They seem to be trying to set "end game" with a level of development. That's what GP is, it's a measure of how much time and/or $$ the player has invested
In any game about development it's never the players choice, there are always gates. This game is no different, this is just a newer gate that helps define things more clearly.
This is not a chess game, in similar games this is very much the case, yes.