Duration of Conquest Should be Shorter
Conquest is great! I believe it's the best PvE game mode in the history of this game, so thank you. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let's talk about my one gripe. Conquest should not run only once a month as proposed originally. It's engaging, the data discs are a theory crafters dream, and a lot of players are maxing out rewards before the completion deadline already. My solution that I believe would benefit both the players and the developers would be to adjust the length of conquest to 7-10 days and run it twice a month. This would encourage players to spend resources in order to complete conquest (something the devs I'm sure would be excited to see) while also giving the players the rewards that come with conquest twice a month. It's a win-win. Thoughts?
0
Replies
I'm not so sure about that. One has to think that conquest, while a smashing success for most players, hasn't led to an immediate return on investment for the devs. If CG can get the average player to spend 200-300 on crystals to achieve greater rewards for every conquest, that might be a fair trade. If the player doesn't spend crystals on refreshes than they get a lower reward box and it kinda evens out over 2 conquests. Meanwhile, some elite players (and spenders) get the exclusive new units that are being introduced a lot faster. I'm sure there are things about this idea that some people on both sides won't agree with, but overall it's more beneficial to everyone than what we have currently.
No one is forced to use crystals. With 2 conquests a month the average player that doesn't spend crystals would make out the same or even better than if they had the extra time. Conquest could become even more engaging because every battle matters as opposed to what we have right now, which is an extra 3+ days where some are completely done with nothing to do.
On those 3 days you can test teams, data disk combinations... or you can rest, same as you would if you had to wait 3 days for the next conquest. Nerfing is bad.
To shorten it would put serious pressure on my limited free time in the evenings. The way it's set out now I can pop on everyday and use all my free energy whilst being able to do the odd refresh when I get a bit of extra time.... it's perfect.
If some are finished with nothing to do for 3+ days, an easier to implement solution is for them to slow down and spend fewer crystals.
also if they shorten it they would also need to be adjusting stamina refresh and energy gain time which just sounds annoying to get right for them.
Exactly this. Some people don't realize how time consuming this game already is - and it's only getting worse. My average screen time is 3 hours. That's insane even though I'm not actively playing the whole time. Sometimes it's just me waiting for another arena attempt or the game is on auto.
In any case, I firmly believe they will introduce a new "Challenge" tier soon (either that or they'll do a massive nerf on the data disks).
Conquest (for now) seems to be more tuned to the low-mid to high-mid range players (between 2-5M GP) and I love this. Not everything new has to be exclusive to the 9M krakens or the "end-game" crowd.
I see the concern for QOL. However, the rewards would be the same if you don't spend since we would get two of these things a month. Right now the plan is for 1 a month. That's 2 and a half weeks with nothing to play. The perfect scenario is CG running Conquest back-to-back, but they need incentive too.
I guess an easy rebuttal to your statement is that you can always choose not to play. For months the player base was asking for more content. As a higher GP player maybe my experience of about 20min a day for conquest differs from a lot of the people voicing concerns. However, developers should probably cater to people who want to play their game more.
Let’s have TB running every week, TWs running every week, GAC never taking a day off, all assault battles running twice weekly...
The first two (TB and TW) are very different because the individual player is not in complete control of those outcomes. As far as your last two sarcastic ideas, I think you'll find a lot of people would actually be in favor of them. GAC is the best thing in this game for many who play, I know a lot of people who wish there was never a break in-between seasons or that players could randomly start an exhibition with one of their friends during the off-season. Obviously all Assault battles twice weekly is nonsense; but, more Assault Battles, while tedious, would be an easy way alleviate the gear crunch.
I read just as many complaints that there’s too much to do.
me.gif
They have no plans on running them more frequently and in their mind that is not the perfect scenario. The timeframe is built in to reward players who progress over time, decreasing the cost as the runs become more "perfect" or increasing rewards, depending on play style.
As they add things they are always trying to balance play time vs everything else. They always want to keep a balance, and as this and other things are added, they will remove or make things simmable. There is also a balance of player income that they try to keep, which is a factor in the rewards here and the frequency of the event.
Its good to us, players and the Mother CG. Ppl gonna use cristals to finish, as they can.
Its good to us, players and the Mother CG. Ppl gonna use cristals to finish, as they can.
again rewards arent the same if you dont reach the higher boxes. some higher boxes have more exclusive rewards that lower dont.
no need to rush or burn crystals. There are much better things to use crystals on. Really the only aspect I don't like is the stamina.