Conquest hard mode

Replies

  • Yoda and Vader exploit massively overpowered in a massive way.
    Officer in Ewoks Fit In Blenders. Traya, Wat & Negotiator on farm. PM to join us.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4052 posts Member
    Konju wrote: »
    Every ten turns (I think it's every 10 turns) you get an instant kill, if you want it (like an event special ability that does the same thing in GAC). If you don't use it, however, it doesn't pass back to the other side to allow them to use it (the way it does in GAC). It's all you & only you.

    I believe it is based upon buffs on your characters and not turns. I believe every 10 buffs your characters gain they will also gain massively overpowered buff and the next ability they use (even if not an attack) will do massive damage.
    It is.every ten buffs. I had one in the first Galactic Conquest. Fun disk but not necessarily the best thing for working on feats.
  • Yoda and Vader exploit massively overpowered in a massive way.

    Massively overpowered is over rated, cooling system is the best thing tho, watching Vader just take endless turns, smashing the aoe every turn, bringing Luke down to its knees single handedly
  • Yoda and Vader exploit massively overpowered in a massive way.

    Massively overpowered is over rated, cooling system is the best thing tho, watching Vader just take endless turns, smashing the aoe every turn, bringing Luke down to its knees single handedly

    I used Cooling System to great affect with Vader's and CLS's squads. Even GMY at g12 was taking out Relic 5 First Order squads under JKR.

    It seems like the Purple Data Disks work extremely well for certain Characters while other combinations of lower tier Data Disks work well with a variety of squads. But that's just what I have noticed with characters I invested in. Maybe others have found differently..

  • Kyno wrote: »
    only things from winning matches should count towards feats

    Wait, I get that should be the way of it for the Boss fight feats, but those cumulative over a phase or over the whole Conquest event feats seem like they should include ALL critical hits or thermal detonators or enemies killed or whatever.

    I mean, CG has the power to decide what the rules of the game are going to be, but that's not a rule change I would support.

    However, that said, GL Rey + 4xJawas is both an automatic win against Geos, but also an automatic feat completion. I could see more than 10 detonators on every Geo before they died, and Geo Brute died twice from the detonators. It was easily over 70 and probably over 90 detonators in that single battle.

    So, for people who have GL Rey but no relic or high-g12 toons that dish Thermal detonators, there is hope. My Jawas are all g9 and under, I think. So it doesn't take much gear. I imagine if you have Scavenger up high enough to use his passive special, you could have the others at g1/level1 just sitting under Rey's protection.


    That is the way feats work in any circumstance, GAC, GCs, and now GCon.

    Wait is it? I thought that you could still progress towards certain GAC feats like "Defeat x enemies with Order 66 characters" or "Attempt to inflict stun 50 times" even if you don't actually win the battle. Or are those also bugged too?
  • I would guess the feats that say “Win and do X” require that you win for it to count, feats saying “Do Y for Z number of times” do not require a win to count. Otherwise it’s unnecessary to have some feats adding the “Win” criteria to their description if it’s really a requirement for all feats.
  • I would guess the feats that say “Win and do X” require that you win for it to count, feats saying “Do Y for Z number of times” do not require a win to count. Otherwise it’s unnecessary to have some feats adding the “Win” criteria to their description if it’s really a requirement for all feats.

    Yea that's what I was thinking too, but I just wanted to make sure in case my memory was just incorrect. If this is the case then this situation isn't as simple as Kyno is suggesting, and it's just factually incorrect for him to say that they need to fix this bug to bring the way feats work in Conquest in line with how they work everywhere else. Because feats currently work two different ways depending on which game mode they're in, so there is no singular consistent line that they have to follow. So it certainly is a valid concern to raise and give feedback on, unless the GAC feats are actually bugged too.
  • Kyno
    29106 posts Moderator
    I would guess the feats that say “Win and do X” require that you win for it to count, feats saying “Do Y for Z number of times” do not require a win to count. Otherwise it’s unnecessary to have some feats adding the “Win” criteria to their description if it’s really a requirement for all feats.

    Yea that's what I was thinking too, but I just wanted to make sure in case my memory was just incorrect. If this is the case then this situation isn't as simple as Kyno is suggesting, and it's just factually incorrect for him to say that they need to fix this bug to bring the way feats work in Conquest in line with how they work everywhere else. Because feats currently work two different ways depending on which game mode they're in, so there is no singular consistent line that they have to follow. So it certainly is a valid concern to raise and give feedback on, unless the GAC feats are actually bugged too.

    I specifically asked about this feat, and was told this is a bug, so it is a fact that this is being called a bug and will be changed.

    I will ask for more clarification on the details. I have never seen or realized a feat was contributed to by a losing match.
  • HK22
    608 posts Member
    I'm 46 datacards away from earning the Hard mode Max box. Here is my feedback on hard mode.

    1) Diversity - I realize that the teams are randomly generated, but it would be nice to fight some stupid compositions for fun. Where is my Ima-Gun-Di led GR, Lobot led Droids, or Gar Saxon troopers?

    2) GR Special Bonus - Because of this bonus, I try to actively avoid fighting GR teams. Maybe reduce the reflection to 50%.

    3) Jawa Scavengers - Hard mode did a better job than normal mode about making each Sector Jawa feel unique in its offerings. My biggest and most controversial suggestion is to change the final Sector's offering from the R8 Injector Piece to the R8 Aeromagnifier and keep the steep price tag. This will force players to choose between those pieces, Razor Crest shards, or large quantities of G12+ gear or signal data.

    4) Once a node has been 3 starred, make an option to turn off the bonuses/data cards on that node. This would allow players to test out compositions in situations closer to live situations. It still has an energy cost associated with it which might encourage some players to spend energy on the refreshes to test out compositions.

    Overall, I do enjoy hard mode and have enjoyed the challenge it presents. As I said above, I would just like to see some more diversity or at least one crazy/fun team per zone, but it is definitely more fun than Grand Arena to me.
  • @Kyno just lost 15 energy because inventory was out of sync? k6lals4hfgbo.jpg
    rzu564aymbxs.jpg applied a stamina booster, clicked battle and boom
  • I fought like hell to beat JML in the first go so I could go for hard this time but my (alt) account is only 3 mil GP. Oops.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I would guess the feats that say “Win and do X” require that you win for it to count, feats saying “Do Y for Z number of times” do not require a win to count. Otherwise it’s unnecessary to have some feats adding the “Win” criteria to their description if it’s really a requirement for all feats.

    Yea that's what I was thinking too, but I just wanted to make sure in case my memory was just incorrect. If this is the case then this situation isn't as simple as Kyno is suggesting, and it's just factually incorrect for him to say that they need to fix this bug to bring the way feats work in Conquest in line with how they work everywhere else. Because feats currently work two different ways depending on which game mode they're in, so there is no singular consistent line that they have to follow. So it certainly is a valid concern to raise and give feedback on, unless the GAC feats are actually bugged too.

    I specifically asked about this feat, and was told this is a bug, so it is a fact that this is being called a bug and will be changed.

    I will ask for more clarification on the details. I have never seen or realized a feat was contributed to by a losing match.

    I didn't say that it's incorrect to say that it's a bug, I said it's incorrect to say that they have to fix this bug in order to bring the Conquest feats in line with GAC and GC feats. You make it seem like they have no choice but to fix it to make it "in accordance with ever other use of this type of element in the game" and because it's the way "feats work in any circumstance, GAC, GCs, and now GCon" (your own words). But this just isn't true if feats are working differently in GAC and GC. Because how can they bring Conquest feats in line with GAC and GC feats if the way those two work are polar opposites? So clearly that's not the reason they're going to fix the bug, unless again, it turns out that GAC feats aren't working as they intended, and they do want everything to be consistent.

    Also, just because it's a bug doesn't mean they definitely have to fix it. The Jawas and the thermal detonator interaction was a bug, but they decided to just make it a feature. I don't think it's out of the question that we can raise feedback about this and ask that they reconsider.

    In any case, I'll happily wait for more clarification on the matter.
  • Nikoms565
    13919 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Every ten turns (I think it's every 10 turns) you get an instant kill, if you want it (like an event special ability that does the same thing in GAC). If you don't use it, however, it doesn't pass back to the other side to allow them to use it (the way it does in GAC). It's all you & only you.

    I believe it is based upon buffs on your characters and not turns. I believe every 10 buffs your characters gain they will also gain massively overpowered buff and the next ability they use (even if not an attack) will do massive damage.
    It is.every ten buffs. I had one in the first Galactic Conquest. Fun disk but not necessarily the best thing for working on feats.

    Sounds fun. Through 1 and 3/5 conquests now - haven't even seen a purple disk yet. RNG is fun.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Rath_Tarr
    4052 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Every ten turns (I think it's every 10 turns) you get an instant kill, if you want it (like an event special ability that does the same thing in GAC). If you don't use it, however, it doesn't pass back to the other side to allow them to use it (the way it does in GAC). It's all you & only you.

    I believe it is based upon buffs on your characters and not turns. I believe every 10 buffs your characters gain they will also gain massively overpowered buff and the next ability they use (even if not an attack) will do massive damage.
    It is.every ten buffs. I had one in the first Galactic Conquest. Fun disk but not necessarily the best thing for working on feats.

    Sounds fun. Through 1 and 3/5 conquests now - haven't even seen a purple disk yet. RNG is fun.
    I have a different purple disk this conquest but I haven't equipped it yet and probably wont. They're kinda fun but not necessary and as I noted previously they can be counterproductive to feat completion.
  • Kyno
    29106 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would guess the feats that say “Win and do X” require that you win for it to count, feats saying “Do Y for Z number of times” do not require a win to count. Otherwise it’s unnecessary to have some feats adding the “Win” criteria to their description if it’s really a requirement for all feats.

    Yea that's what I was thinking too, but I just wanted to make sure in case my memory was just incorrect. If this is the case then this situation isn't as simple as Kyno is suggesting, and it's just factually incorrect for him to say that they need to fix this bug to bring the way feats work in Conquest in line with how they work everywhere else. Because feats currently work two different ways depending on which game mode they're in, so there is no singular consistent line that they have to follow. So it certainly is a valid concern to raise and give feedback on, unless the GAC feats are actually bugged too.

    I specifically asked about this feat, and was told this is a bug, so it is a fact that this is being called a bug and will be changed.

    I will ask for more clarification on the details. I have never seen or realized a feat was contributed to by a losing match.

    I didn't say that it's incorrect to say that it's a bug, I said it's incorrect to say that they have to fix this bug in order to bring the Conquest feats in line with GAC and GC feats. You make it seem like they have no choice but to fix it to make it "in accordance with ever other use of this type of element in the game" and because it's the way "feats work in any circumstance, GAC, GCs, and now GCon" (your own words). But this just isn't true if feats are working differently in GAC and GC. Because how can they bring Conquest feats in line with GAC and GC feats if the way those two work are polar opposites? So clearly that's not the reason they're going to fix the bug, unless again, it turns out that GAC feats aren't working as they intended, and they do want everything to be consistent.

    Also, just because it's a bug doesn't mean they definitely have to fix it. The Jawas and the thermal detonator interaction was a bug, but they decided to just make it a feature. I don't think it's out of the question that we can raise feedback about this and ask that they reconsider.

    In any case, I'll happily wait for more clarification on the matter.

    Ok, I see.

    About not fixing bugs, there are 2 ways things can go...

    Liking a bug doesnt give Doja a leg to stand on if there are other places where something is used and they are making them all line up. (He is the one who would be representing the player side of this argument)

    Isolated things can have an argument that "they are not a bug". (This will be evaluated individually and could or could not change)

    In this case the situation started as liking a bug, which is never going to be a reason to not change a bug, if it is to bring it in line with other uses of that element. If feats have 2 variants, then yes which ever case this falls in should align with how it is used elsewhere.

    I believe since this fell into the bug bin, that when this question is posed to them they will make a determination if other feats in other game modes are bugged. As I said I will ask for clarification.
  • But will you at least ask for clarification?
  • CT_Waxer_7777
    141 posts Member
    edited March 21
    @Kyno foes this mean that those who completed it this way will have their rewards removed?
  • In regards to the detonator bug
  • @Kyno foes this mean that those who completed it this way will have their rewards removed?

    I don't see why that would happen, since everyone is able to do it the bugged way right now. It's an even playing field. I assume they're just going to change it for the next Conquest
  • Saada
    562 posts Member
    The counting towards feats in a loss/draw can't be a planned interaction. I just used it to my advantage by using my jkr to continuously mark zombie until it times out. I get about 6-7 marks that count towards the feat and my characters lose no stamina for the draw so I just do it again. you are actually worse off for winning.
  • I will say one weird thing about hard mode is the sector 4 feats are harder than the sector 5 feats.
  • The counting towards feats in a loss/draw can't be a planned interaction. I just used it to my advantage by using my jkr to continuously mark zombie until it times out. I get about 6-7 marks that count towards the feat and my characters lose no stamina for the draw so I just do it again. you are actually worse off for winning.

    Since the energy cost is the same, you don't actually gain an advantage. you just have to space these attempts 5 hours apart. And that's fine, since no one is actually losing and replaying a battle that they could win the first time they face it. They're going back and spending energy later when the teams that they want to use for forward progress are down stamina, but they still have energy to spend.

    So what you gain is not an in-game advantage. What you gain is player convenience.

    If I was a game designer and I had realized that i'd made a mistake that gave away no in-game advantage, but did result in player convenience, I would sure as heck leave the game the way it was. Revan is just a subroutine. Unless you believe Tron was a documentary, Revan doesn't care if he wins or loses and making Revan happy or sad won't change the amount SWGOH is played nor affect CG's revenue in any way.

    What will make a difference in CG's revenue is if players like your game, and making the game convenient to play is definitely going to make it more likable for your players. If you can make it more likable without giving away rewards that are meant to be scarce by providing an in-game advantage? So much the better.

    In my opinion CG should change their expectations rather than their code. The feat is fine as is.

    If there's any problem at all, it would be early on in Normal mode. In that case, simply don't assign such progress feats until after they beat Sector 2/Normal so that players can't earn a higher reward box without first proving that they can earn any rewards at all. That can be done by specifying "win X battles with only Jedi" (or other faction). That's probably trivial in Normal for the people who will go on to beat Sector 5, but for people starting out that won't even reach Sector 5/Normal and may not even reach Sector 3, you know, the people who have a chance to fall short of even the easiest prize box, those people might have a couple good teams, but they won't have a good squad in every faction.

    If you do it that way, then you can't have people loading up on the "empty calories" of progress feats that you can accomplish through losses to get their first prize box, but for people who are already going to get prize boxes and could easily accomplish the feat anyway, you make it more convenient by not forcing those fights to be spaced out by 5 hours.

    I mean, seriously, isn't that the whole point of not losing stamina in a loss? To make trying multiple times more convenient for the player? Why not let player convenience matter when it comes to progress feats?
  • Having difficulty getting in to hard node On reading this post it states you have to complete normal, which I have done but no where can I find how to unlock hard node, I tried the EA help, which was a waste of time, anyone here advise if I am missing something, thanks

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/242353/razor-crest-shards-and-unlocking-conquest-hard-mode
  • Gibrise wrote: »
    Having difficulty getting in to hard node On reading this post it states you have to complete normal, which I have done but no where can I find how to unlock hard node, I tried the EA help, which was a waste of time, anyone here advise if I am missing something, thanks

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/242353/razor-crest-shards-and-unlocking-conquest-hard-mode

    4mil minimum GP is a hard requirement, not a recommendation. Also, did you complete normal in the first conquest or this one?
    You can't go from one to the other in the same 2 week conquest, you have to wait for the next time.
  • LOL

    I just lost a battle vs. Phoenix. I was trying to play with no attackers, and how hard could Phoenix be? That +15% Protection UP was a LOT of protection at this level and I couldn't break through and kill either Kanan or Chopper with my damage dealers. Would have been fine if I had some "offense up" disks or something. But nope. It ended up timing out. Well, that's one to remember, but it's only my 2nd lost battle (the other was also when trying to get cute going for a feat) and there's enough spare energy to lose a few here & there so right now I'm not upset. I'm just laughing at timing out vs. Phoenix. Nicely played, CG. Nicely played.
  • Best Box is 04 if you have no chance yet to relic8
  • I'll be able to hit the last crate, and thank god there are more RC shards in there, because crate 4 is the best for gear.
    I don't understand why the crates don't just get "better" the further you go. Just stack the rewards instead of replacing them.
  • Saada
    562 posts Member
    The counting towards feats in a loss/draw can't be a planned interaction. I just used it to my advantage by using my jkr to continuously mark zombie until it times out. I get about 6-7 marks that count towards the feat and my characters lose no stamina for the draw so I just do it again. you are actually worse off for winning.

    Since the energy cost is the same, you don't actually gain an advantage. you just have to space these attempts 5 hours apart. And that's fine, since no one is actually losing and replaying a battle that they could win the first time they face it. They're going back and spending energy later when the teams that they want to use for forward progress are down stamina, but they still have energy to spend.

    So what you gain is not an in-game advantage. What you gain is player convenience.

    If I was a game designer and I had realized that i'd made a mistake that gave away no in-game advantage, but did result in player convenience, I would sure as heck leave the game the way it was. Revan is just a subroutine. Unless you believe Tron was a documentary, Revan doesn't care if he wins or loses and making Revan happy or sad won't change the amount SWGOH is played nor affect CG's revenue in any way.

    What will make a difference in CG's revenue is if players like your game, and making the game convenient to play is definitely going to make it more likable for your players. If you can make it more likable without giving away rewards that are meant to be scarce by providing an in-game advantage? So much the better.

    In my opinion CG should change their expectations rather than their code. The feat is fine as is.

    If there's any problem at all, it would be early on in Normal mode. In that case, simply don't assign such progress feats until after they beat Sector 2/Normal so that players can't earn a higher reward box without first proving that they can earn any rewards at all. That can be done by specifying "win X battles with only Jedi" (or other faction). That's probably trivial in Normal for the people who will go on to beat Sector 5, but for people starting out that won't even reach Sector 5/Normal and may not even reach Sector 3, you know, the people who have a chance to fall short of even the easiest prize box, those people might have a couple good teams, but they won't have a good squad in every faction.

    If you do it that way, then you can't have people loading up on the "empty calories" of progress feats that you can accomplish through losses to get their first prize box, but for people who are already going to get prize boxes and could easily accomplish the feat anyway, you make it more convenient by not forcing those fights to be spaced out by 5 hours.

    I mean, seriously, isn't that the whole point of not losing stamina in a loss? To make trying multiple times more convenient for the player? Why not let player convenience matter when it comes to progress feats?

    You can say its just a convenience thing but I prefer to say advantage. What you can't deny is that you are worse off by winning. By winning, it means that you waste stamina and have less time in battle to keep marking characters therefore it will take you more battles to achieve the feats. The fact that it's better to just time out is not a good interaction in my opinion.
  • Saada
    562 posts Member
    Also "isn't that the whole point of not losing stamina in a loss?"
    Ummm, no. Not when you intentionally are trying to lose or draw. You don't lose stamina if you try to WIN and fail but I don't think you should be able to achieve feats by actively trying to lose or draw the battle like I was doing with this interaction.
  • MaruMaru
    2143 posts Member
    Saada wrote: »
    Also "isn't that the whole point of not losing stamina in a loss?"
    Ummm, no. Not when you intentionally are trying to lose or draw. You don't lose stamina if you try to WIN and fail but I don't think you should be able to achieve feats by actively trying to lose or draw the battle like I was doing with this interaction.

    Would you like it if stamina was lost on losses too?
Sign In or Register to comment.