Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.
But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.
Because they want the decision to be meaningful.
Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".
It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷
And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.
I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.
I disagree. If they lowered the amount of equippable disks, the opportunity costs for selecting disks would make it meaningful despite having no direct cost to switching. I mean, you still have to slend the energy to attempt the battle to see if your disk selection is worth it.
Yes changing the number of discs you can equip would change things, but I didnt think that was part of this conversation.
Correct, but that would be "half the cost" than it is now. So the weight of the choice would be different and therefore "easier" to make.
The issue is equating meaningful with more engagement. It's in no way more engaging if I have spend energy to swap out data disks and then wait for two more hours for my energy to replenish just to test out whether the swap worked or was worth it. If it wasn't, wait another two hours to replenish the energy back enough to swap them out again. I barely see how that makes the data disk selection meaningful, but it certainly is the opposite of engaging.
Here's what I see happening personally if I'm allowed to swap out data disks for free. I swap the disks and it allows me to come close to completing a faction feat. I make another small change and I'm still close but not quite there. I try one more change and it works, guess what, now I'm engaged. Now I refresh the energy to burn through the monotonous task of completing a redundant battle 13 more times, except that then I run into having to wait for the players to refresh their stamina, especially if it was a close battle to begin with. So instead I then turn my focus to completing a different task which in turn likely takes a completely different set of data disks to be effective and / or efficient. If I could do this for free, what it likely means is I'm alternating back and forth between the tasks. But, if I have to spend energy every time to make changes to the dds, kills any chance that I can do that without having to drop more and more crystals on what amounts to a grindy redundant task. That makes me bitter and is the accomplishes the opposite of being more engaged with the game.
On top of that what I see happening as it is, is that because of the cost of swapping the dds, I maybe switch them out once or twice throughout the conquest as I unlock better ones. That doesn't make it meaningful, it makes half of the dds meaningless! As in they will never be used because the ROI for swapping them out and trying different strategies is non-existent and actually is very detrimental to the entire game mode.
Bottom line is: Making data disks cost something to switch out runs counter to their stated goal of trying to make the game more engaging while appearing to be nothing more than an attempted cash grab in what has turned into a disaster of a game mode.
Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.
But that’s my question. What’s the rationale for why it can’t be easy? I’m sure they wouldn’t say any of the disks are useless. So why should I have to weigh which ones are the rights ones to put on and which ones are going to screw me over? That implies some of the disks are like red herrings.
Because they want the decision to be meaningful.
Some disks are better than others, some are better overall, and some are situational. Figuring out how you to place them and possibly remove them "should be meaningful".
It's meaningful (imo) when I get the feat because I applied a certain data disk, not because I spent an arbitrary amount of energy to swap it in. The energy cost to me is not meaningful, it's just annoying and bars me from completing more battles, which means less engagement with a mode they wanted more engagement out of 🤷
And if you could just swap them around at any time, there would be nothing meaningful about what you place, just about what you collect, which is just RNG.
I'm not saying they have not discussed changes, but this is always the balance they are looking at.
I disagree. If they lowered the amount of equippable disks, the opportunity costs for selecting disks would make it meaningful despite having no direct cost to switching. I mean, you still have to slend the energy to attempt the battle to see if your disk selection is worth it.
Yes changing the number of discs you can equip would change things, but I didnt think that was part of this conversation.
Correct, but that would be "half the cost" than it is now. So the weight of the choice would be different and therefore "easier" to make.
We ultimately are in the same space as before: swapping disks is still discouraged. As such, you equip the ones you think will help the most as you go, and then only change if you really, really have to. This is not a "meaningful choice," this is simply removing fun from a game mode for the sake of making it un-fun.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
Never accused you of liking it, but I can tell you that it's not "meaningful," at all. If I am presented with good choices at the beginning then I don't swap because there's no point. If I am presented with not good choices then I don't equip because there's no point. Generally, the only reason to swap is for fun. CG doesn't want us to swap, ergo they don't want us to have fun.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
I'd like to know what data CG has that says ppl find the cost of swapping disks makes swapping disks "meaningful". Seems like a very difficult data point to collect since ppl can swap disks but CG has no knowledge as to why they swapped those disks or if they'd swap disks more if there was no cost associated to doing so or if energy cost is "more meaningful" than currency cost.
From here it seems like they're throwing the word "meaningful" around to justify a decision that directly hinders everything they've stated is their goal for Conquest. But on the other hand, since CG logic is DRevs Deathmark doesn't count, debuffs = enemy suicides, and SLK & Padme don't actually stun anyone, their enemies stun themselves....perhaps their logic is not able to be understood by us lowly players.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
I'd like to know what data CG has that says ppl find the cost of swapping disks makes swapping disks "meaningful". Seems like a very difficult data point to collect since ppl can swap disks but CG has no knowledge as to why they swapped those disks or if they'd swap disks more if there was no cost associated to doing so or if energy cost is "more meaningful" than currency cost.
From here it seems like they're throwing the word "meaningful" around to justify a decision that directly hinders everything they've stated is their goal for Conquest. But on the other hand, since CG logic is DRevs Deathmark doesn't count, debuffs = enemy suicides, and SLK & Padme don't actually stun anyone, their enemies stun themselves....perhaps their logic is not able to be understood by us lowly players.
Do you swap disks? Why it why not?
I am guessing the reason is due to the cost associated with doing so. What other data do you think they need? As I pointed to in a different post, the game is all about choices, each choice has a weight, and some are more or less meaningful based on that weight. That is a guiding principle of the games layout, we see it everywhere, this is no different.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
I'd like to know what data CG has that says ppl find the cost of swapping disks makes swapping disks "meaningful". Seems like a very difficult data point to collect since ppl can swap disks but CG has no knowledge as to why they swapped those disks or if they'd swap disks more if there was no cost associated to doing so or if energy cost is "more meaningful" than currency cost.
From here it seems like they're throwing the word "meaningful" around to justify a decision that directly hinders everything they've stated is their goal for Conquest. But on the other hand, since CG logic is DRevs Deathmark doesn't count, debuffs = enemy suicides, and SLK & Padme don't actually stun anyone, their enemies stun themselves....perhaps their logic is not able to be understood by us lowly players.
Do you swap disks? Why it why not?
I am guessing the reason is due to the cost associated with doing so. What other data do you think they need? As I pointed to in a different post, the game is all about choices, each choice has a weight, and some are more or less meaningful based on that weight. That is a guiding principle of the games layout, we see it everywhere, this is no different.
Actually the reason is due to CG giving me 3 of the same disk on a node or 2 of the same disk on a node or the same 4 disks every node. But thank you for proving my point. CG equates us choosing to swap or not swap as "meaningful" and not as their inability to FIX DATA DISK DISTRIBUTION!! It baffles me that this is still a problem 7 conquests in.
tl;dr- CG views their woeful disk distribution abilities as us making meaningful choices on which disks we equip. Certainly explains why they haven't fixed it.
$$$. Spend more for more crystals so you can refresh more often.. That's ENGAGEMENT, right???
ugh..
It should be just Credits.. make it more expensive in Hard Mode, of course. But this "Energy" idea is just horrible with the new Feats and the added cost for each Battle.
I don't think there is a credit amount that would make the choices feel significant for most players. Many veteran players have a huge amount just sitting around waiting for mods that look like they hold some promise.
That can be a challenge.. But not every veteran player has hundreds of millions of credits and not every newer player has very little. It is subjective.
I think there should be a cost but tying it to Energy is counter-intuitive to "engagement" or even the theory-crafting for the insane number of Feats..
Credits are the balance for the thought of having a "Cost" and not reducing the Engagement for this Event.
Credits would make the choice "easy" on what fisks to put on. They don't want that to be "easy" they want players to have to think about it, even weigh the options of having nothing while waiting for something they really want to equip.
Things will progress and change, and this will always be a conversation to be had, and maybe one of the trade offs we see to help keep this mode "engaging", but only time will tell.
Here's the problem though. I'm not actually thinking about it. I'm not weighing any options. I'm simply ignoring the option of swapping data disks. So I'm using few and I'm not removing them. Where's the engagement in that? They didn't want it "easy" to swap disks. Solution! Don't let us swap disks. They want to keep the mode "engaging" that's hilarious bc they've done the exact opposite. I've never seen so many players disengaged from both the mode and the game itself. I enjoyed the first conquest. 2nd was okay. 3rd was repetitive. The next set of three became pure boredom and the only glimmer of joy was CAT. This set? This set could end tomorrow and I wouldn't miss it. They still have the same feats from the first 6 in. STILL. They added worse ones and kept the boring old ones.
I do fewer battles each day than in 1-6 and don't want to spend crystals on refreshes (and haven't thus far). If they believe this keeps players engaged, it explains why they make so many bad decisions.
Wow I couldn’t agree with this more. The first few conquests, I spent crystals because I wanted to do more battles and play the game mode more. The only thing that kept me from playing all 14 days was the penalty on swapping disks. For this conquest, I’ve chosen to put my phone down and find something else to do each time that I’ve thought about spending crystals.
I have no doubt that I could get the second best crate. I could probably get the best crate if I spent my hoard of gear and crystals, but I really just don’t know that I want to play this game mode any more. And since this mode was the most fun I’ve had in 2021 on swgoh, I’m pretty sure I’ll be done with the game soon.
This is my take on it. If the actual was more engagement (which we clearly know that it's not). Having the ability to swap out data disks would create that. If I have to win 14 battles with a specific faction that is under-geared, the ability to swap out data disks and try it gives me a chance to complete the feat. However if I have to burn energy (which is already overly scarce) to do it, just to lose, I won't even bother trying, because the crystal sink at that point is just too great.
If CG truly wants engagement, then allow people to engage in it without nickel and diming them for every single interaction. It's a huge turnoff for a game mode that could have been fun.
Exactly. The whole "it needs a cost to make the choice meaningfull," makes no sense. If swapping disks were free, you would still have to think and make a choice at every stop. Free or not, you still need disks that will help you. Not a single disk choice that I've made has had swapping cost factored in. It's always just: will this disk be useful now or later? If yes, get it; if no, don't get it.
Would you have to think about it? If there was no cost, it seems like you would have to think about it less, if it was wrong or not as effective, you would just change them, no fuss.
Of course you would have to think about it. There's no going back. If you pick one that doesn't work, the consequence isn't swapping it out, the consequence is that you can't go back to that node and pick a different one.
The thought process around which ones you pick at the node "wouldnt change" at least not in any meaningful way. Sorry I thought we were talking about "a build" based on the inventory we have at that moment.
The choices made at each point of collection would still be based on the ones we think are useful, isnt it?
Right. And the choices of which ones to equip, extra cost or not, are still meaningful based on the extra energy cost associated with battle. All well and good to swap disks around, you still have to do a battle to try it out. If it failed, you still spent energy. If it succeeded, you still spent energy.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
I'd like to know what data CG has that says ppl find the cost of swapping disks makes swapping disks "meaningful". Seems like a very difficult data point to collect since ppl can swap disks but CG has no knowledge as to why they swapped those disks or if they'd swap disks more if there was no cost associated to doing so or if energy cost is "more meaningful" than currency cost.
From here it seems like they're throwing the word "meaningful" around to justify a decision that directly hinders everything they've stated is their goal for Conquest. But on the other hand, since CG logic is DRevs Deathmark doesn't count, debuffs = enemy suicides, and SLK & Padme don't actually stun anyone, their enemies stun themselves....perhaps their logic is not able to be understood by us lowly players.
Do you swap disks? Why it why not?
I am guessing the reason is due to the cost associated with doing so. What other data do you think they need? As I pointed to in a different post, the game is all about choices, each choice has a weight, and some are more or less meaningful based on that weight. That is a guiding principle of the games layout, we see it everywhere, this is no different.
Actually the reason is due to CG giving me 3 of the same disk on a node or 2 of the same disk on a node or the same 4 disks every node. But thank you for proving my point. CG equates us choosing to swap or not swap as "meaningful" and not as their inability to FIX DATA DISK DISTRIBUTION!! It baffles me that this is still a problem 7 conquests in.
tl;dr- CG views their woeful disk distribution abilities as us making meaningful choices on which disks we equip. Certainly explains why they haven't fixed it.
Yep, I got about half way through sector 2 with my non-GL teams before I had to equip disks. At that point, I would say equip what you have, but even then I couldn’t do that as all the turn meter gain disks would make SLKR useless. So you equip enough of what you have (this time for me it was basically all garbage as I didn’t get a good disk until sector 4) until you can move forward again.
Replies
The issue is equating meaningful with more engagement. It's in no way more engaging if I have spend energy to swap out data disks and then wait for two more hours for my energy to replenish just to test out whether the swap worked or was worth it. If it wasn't, wait another two hours to replenish the energy back enough to swap them out again. I barely see how that makes the data disk selection meaningful, but it certainly is the opposite of engaging.
Here's what I see happening personally if I'm allowed to swap out data disks for free. I swap the disks and it allows me to come close to completing a faction feat. I make another small change and I'm still close but not quite there. I try one more change and it works, guess what, now I'm engaged. Now I refresh the energy to burn through the monotonous task of completing a redundant battle 13 more times, except that then I run into having to wait for the players to refresh their stamina, especially if it was a close battle to begin with. So instead I then turn my focus to completing a different task which in turn likely takes a completely different set of data disks to be effective and / or efficient. If I could do this for free, what it likely means is I'm alternating back and forth between the tasks. But, if I have to spend energy every time to make changes to the dds, kills any chance that I can do that without having to drop more and more crystals on what amounts to a grindy redundant task. That makes me bitter and is the accomplishes the opposite of being more engaged with the game.
On top of that what I see happening as it is, is that because of the cost of swapping the dds, I maybe switch them out once or twice throughout the conquest as I unlock better ones. That doesn't make it meaningful, it makes half of the dds meaningless! As in they will never be used because the ROI for swapping them out and trying different strategies is non-existent and actually is very detrimental to the entire game mode.
Bottom line is: Making data disks cost something to switch out runs counter to their stated goal of trying to make the game more engaging while appearing to be nothing more than an attempted cash grab in what has turned into a disaster of a game mode.
We ultimately are in the same space as before: swapping disks is still discouraged. As such, you equip the ones you think will help the most as you go, and then only change if you really, really have to. This is not a "meaningful choice," this is simply removing fun from a game mode for the sake of making it un-fun.
Exactly.
Which is all I have been saying, it costs more which is making it "more meaningful" than if there was no cost on swapping.
Again. I don't like this, but it is clear that having a cost there vs not does give the choice a different weight and to some that will not be worth it, others it may.
Personally I have always ended up doing at least 1 (or more) swaps per Conquest. I'm at 2 already for this one, but probably won't do any more.
Never accused you of liking it, but I can tell you that it's not "meaningful," at all. If I am presented with good choices at the beginning then I don't swap because there's no point. If I am presented with not good choices then I don't equip because there's no point. Generally, the only reason to swap is for fun. CG doesn't want us to swap, ergo they don't want us to have fun.
I'd like to know what data CG has that says ppl find the cost of swapping disks makes swapping disks "meaningful". Seems like a very difficult data point to collect since ppl can swap disks but CG has no knowledge as to why they swapped those disks or if they'd swap disks more if there was no cost associated to doing so or if energy cost is "more meaningful" than currency cost.
From here it seems like they're throwing the word "meaningful" around to justify a decision that directly hinders everything they've stated is their goal for Conquest. But on the other hand, since CG logic is DRevs Deathmark doesn't count, debuffs = enemy suicides, and SLK & Padme don't actually stun anyone, their enemies stun themselves....perhaps their logic is not able to be understood by us lowly players.
Do you swap disks? Why it why not?
I am guessing the reason is due to the cost associated with doing so. What other data do you think they need? As I pointed to in a different post, the game is all about choices, each choice has a weight, and some are more or less meaningful based on that weight. That is a guiding principle of the games layout, we see it everywhere, this is no different.
Actually the reason is due to CG giving me 3 of the same disk on a node or 2 of the same disk on a node or the same 4 disks every node. But thank you for proving my point. CG equates us choosing to swap or not swap as "meaningful" and not as their inability to FIX DATA DISK DISTRIBUTION!! It baffles me that this is still a problem 7 conquests in.
tl;dr- CG views their woeful disk distribution abilities as us making meaningful choices on which disks we equip. Certainly explains why they haven't fixed it.
Wow I couldn’t agree with this more. The first few conquests, I spent crystals because I wanted to do more battles and play the game mode more. The only thing that kept me from playing all 14 days was the penalty on swapping disks. For this conquest, I’ve chosen to put my phone down and find something else to do each time that I’ve thought about spending crystals.
I have no doubt that I could get the second best crate. I could probably get the best crate if I spent my hoard of gear and crystals, but I really just don’t know that I want to play this game mode any more. And since this mode was the most fun I’ve had in 2021 on swgoh, I’m pretty sure I’ll be done with the game soon.
Yep, I got about half way through sector 2 with my non-GL teams before I had to equip disks. At that point, I would say equip what you have, but even then I couldn’t do that as all the turn meter gain disks would make SLKR useless. So you equip enough of what you have (this time for me it was basically all garbage as I didn’t get a good disk until sector 4) until you can move forward again.