Conquest 8&9

Replies

  • Xcien
    2249 posts Member
    DinoMight wrote: »
    Kyno, you want constructive discussion, but do you have *any* examples of user ideas being adopted (no, a year+ later doesn't count)? How about a response from a developer other than "ill bring it to the team." What about some follow-up, like "the team discussed and plan on doing a, but not b and c."

    Even simple things often repeated like feat counter go nowhere. And yet, all the changes to increase monetization, including creating an insane feat structure, go forward regardless of massive player disatisfaction. At this point, your words ring completely hollow.

    So, here's an idea that everyone can discuss and comment on. Scrap the linear map in conquest. Make it a massive Chinese checkers-like board (could be just a giant circle if you want to keep it simple, or heck, change the shape whenever you want). All nodes revealed, all data disks revealed, everything can be seen. You start on the outside and work your way in. Number of keycards increase as you go toward the center. Battles get harder as you go toward the center. All feats are universal.

    Players get to choose their path through the board. They actually will want to spend time playing ning everything out. And here's the kicker, don't worry about it being too easy for some and too hard for others. Everyone gets the *same exact board.* the differences in rosters may lead people to choose different paths. And as CG sees certain node types and patterns being used too much, they can rearrange or change them in subsequent runs. It becomes a completely tunable but totally user-driven game mode.

    You can let people spend thousands of crystals refreshing to just skirt the outside easy battles, or they can dive deep to get max keycards per battle, but they may miss some important data disk nodes on the way to minimize their energy usage. You can make data disk nodes cost energy to unlock, then allow card swapping be free. Make the nodes cost varying energy based on the "value" of the cards. Remember, they are static set by the map designer, so no worries about bad luck. You get what you "pay" for. This would allow some folks who have very heavy rosters try to avoid the disks altogether to save a bit of energy of they so choose. Imagine a system where you have many choices, and all of them have potential upsides and downsides, and you can plan a strategy to choose the ones that best suit your playstyle and roster.

    Encourage inner nodes or boss nodes with increased keycard rewards or feats, maybe associate purple data disks only with most inner boss nodes? So many possibilities to make this something for everyone, and give players the freedom to play it how they want while still having total control over the reward structure (a.k.a. monetization).

    That would be great! Definitely an improvement from the current Conquest.
    One may learn a great deal about a people by the stories they tell of others.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback has been noted.
  • DinoMight wrote: »
    Kyno, you want constructive discussion, but do you have *any* examples of user ideas being adopted (no, a year+ later doesn't count)? How about a response from a developer other than "ill bring it to the team." What about some follow-up, like "the team discussed and plan on doing a, but not b and c."

    Even simple things often repeated like feat counter go nowhere. And yet, all the changes to increase monetization, including creating an insane feat structure, go forward regardless of massive player disatisfaction. At this point, your words ring completely hollow.

    So, here's an idea that everyone can discuss and comment on. Scrap the linear map in conquest. Make it a massive Chinese checkers-like board (could be just a giant circle if you want to keep it simple, or heck, change the shape whenever you want). All nodes revealed, all data disks revealed, everything can be seen. You start on the outside and work your way in. Number of keycards increase as you go toward the center. Battles get harder as you go toward the center. All feats are universal.

    Players get to choose their path through the board. They actually will want to spend time playing ning everything out. And here's the kicker, don't worry about it being too easy for some and too hard for others. Everyone gets the *same exact board.* the differences in rosters may lead people to choose different paths. And as CG sees certain node types and patterns being used too much, they can rearrange or change them in subsequent runs. It becomes a completely tunable but totally user-driven game mode.

    You can let people spend thousands of crystals refreshing to just skirt the outside easy battles, or they can dive deep to get max keycards per battle, but they may miss some important data disk nodes on the way to minimize their energy usage. You can make data disk nodes cost energy to unlock, then allow card swapping be free. Make the nodes cost varying energy based on the "value" of the cards. Remember, they are static set by the map designer, so no worries about bad luck. You get what you "pay" for. This would allow some folks who have very heavy rosters try to avoid the disks altogether to save a bit of energy of they so choose. Imagine a system where you have many choices, and all of them have potential upsides and downsides, and you can plan a strategy to choose the ones that best suit your playstyle and roster.

    Encourage inner nodes or boss nodes with increased keycard rewards or feats, maybe associate purple data disks only with most inner boss nodes? So many possibilities to make this something for everyone, and give players the freedom to play it how they want while still having total control over the reward structure (a.k.a. monetization).

    This sounds far and beyond better than what is currently being churned out and forced down our throats. This unlocks so many possibles and could be a win for player enjoyment and CG’s bottom dollar.
  • Ultra
    8547 posts Moderator
    Monel wrote: »
    d5xe2tti0wid.gif

    You want me to go around in circles?
  • Kyno
    32049 posts Moderator
    DinoMight wrote: »
    Kyno, you want constructive discussion, but do you have *any* examples of user ideas being adopted (no, a year+ later doesn't count)? How about a response from a developer other than "ill bring it to the team." What about some follow-up, like "the team discussed and plan on doing a, but not b and c."

    Even simple things often repeated like feat counter go nowhere. And yet, all the changes to increase monetization, including creating an insane feat structure, go forward regardless of massive player disatisfaction. At this point, your words ring completely hollow.

    So, here's an idea that everyone can discuss and comment on. Scrap the linear map in conquest. Make it a massive Chinese checkers-like board (could be just a giant circle if you want to keep it simple, or heck, change the shape whenever you want). All nodes revealed, all data disks revealed, everything can be seen. You start on the outside and work your way in. Number of keycards increase as you go toward the center. Battles get harder as you go toward the center. All feats are universal.

    Players get to choose their path through the board. They actually will want to spend time playing ning everything out. And here's the kicker, don't worry about it being too easy for some and too hard for others. Everyone gets the *same exact board.* the differences in rosters may lead people to choose different paths. And as CG sees certain node types and patterns being used too much, they can rearrange or change them in subsequent runs. It becomes a completely tunable but totally user-driven game mode.

    You can let people spend thousands of crystals refreshing to just skirt the outside easy battles, or they can dive deep to get max keycards per battle, but they may miss some important data disk nodes on the way to minimize their energy usage. You can make data disk nodes cost energy to unlock, then allow card swapping be free. Make the nodes cost varying energy based on the "value" of the cards. Remember, they are static set by the map designer, so no worries about bad luck. You get what you "pay" for. This would allow some folks who have very heavy rosters try to avoid the disks altogether to save a bit of energy of they so choose. Imagine a system where you have many choices, and all of them have potential upsides and downsides, and you can plan a strategy to choose the ones that best suit your playstyle and roster.

    Encourage inner nodes or boss nodes with increased keycard rewards or feats, maybe associate purple data disks only with most inner boss nodes? So many possibilities to make this something for everyone, and give players the freedom to play it how they want while still having total control over the reward structure (a.k.a. monetization).

    There are a lot of great things in this post. I appreciate you taking the time to write this up.

    I dont necessarily see them "remaking" large elements of Conquest in this fashion but I will certainly make sure this gets seen by Doja and others on the team.
  • Monel
    2464 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    Monel wrote: »
    d5xe2tti0wid.gif

    You want me to go around in circles?

    Kind of what happens here already 🤔
  • DinoMight wrote: »
    Kyno, you want constructive discussion, but do you have *any* examples of user ideas being adopted (no, a year+ later doesn't count)? How about a response from a developer other than "ill bring it to the team." What about some follow-up, like "the team discussed and plan on doing a, but not b and c."

    Even simple things often repeated like feat counter go nowhere. And yet, all the changes to increase monetization, including creating an insane feat structure, go forward regardless of massive player disatisfaction. At this point, your words ring completely hollow.

    So, here's an idea that everyone can discuss and comment on. Scrap the linear map in conquest. Make it a massive Chinese checkers-like board (could be just a giant circle if you want to keep it simple, or heck, change the shape whenever you want). All nodes revealed, all data disks revealed, everything can be seen. You start on the outside and work your way in. Number of keycards increase as you go toward the center. Battles get harder as you go toward the center. All feats are universal.

    Players get to choose their path through the board. They actually will want to spend time playing ning everything out. And here's the kicker, don't worry about it being too easy for some and too hard for others. Everyone gets the *same exact board.* the differences in rosters may lead people to choose different paths. And as CG sees certain node types and patterns being used too much, they can rearrange or change them in subsequent runs. It becomes a completely tunable but totally user-driven game mode.

    You can let people spend thousands of crystals refreshing to just skirt the outside easy battles, or they can dive deep to get max keycards per battle, but they may miss some important data disk nodes on the way to minimize their energy usage. You can make data disk nodes cost energy to unlock, then allow card swapping be free. Make the nodes cost varying energy based on the "value" of the cards. Remember, they are static set by the map designer, so no worries about bad luck. You get what you "pay" for. This would allow some folks who have very heavy rosters try to avoid the disks altogether to save a bit of energy of they so choose. Imagine a system where you have many choices, and all of them have potential upsides and downsides, and you can plan a strategy to choose the ones that best suit your playstyle and roster.

    Encourage inner nodes or boss nodes with increased keycard rewards or feats, maybe associate purple data disks only with most inner boss nodes? So many possibilities to make this something for everyone, and give players the freedom to play it how they want while still having total control over the reward structure (a.k.a. monetization).

    Hats off to you!

    Amazing ideas, if they wanted to make something like this I for one would be very excited to play it!
  • If raids are a thing of the past, mini raid bosses at the end of sectors/conquest would be awesome.
  • Zumwan
    141 posts Member
    Starslayer wrote: »
    If raids are a thing of the past, mini raid bosses at the end of sectors/conquest would be awesome.

    This could even help justify more raids. If it's not worth it to invest a lot of development time working on a new raid boss when the new mode will become stale very quickly, of this new boss would be usable in more modes, like conquest, it wouldn't be such a bad investment.

  • Zumwan
    141 posts Member
    Here's an idea that I don't think I've seen mentioned in the past:
    Let us choose who we want to be the "main" reward each conquest. We currently have 3 conquest-exclusive characters, and people who do normal conquest like me end up having a negligible amount of shards of each before we switch to the next one. Right now I have no use for Maul (and will be very far from him anyway), however, i would love to be able to build up to CAT across the span of 6 months or something as she would actually fit into my Padme squad. I know we're getting some shards for her this month but I would still be very far, and will become very hard to get once Maul becomes the Second Tier reward next month (considering I don't have many crystals to spare getting her shards whenever they pop-up, I'm just so far I don't think it's worth the investment).
    This wouldn't affect top players as they would naturally always pick the shiny new toon, but would greatly help those of us far from top Hard Mode rewards.
    A new page could be added to the Journey Guide for Conquest Journeys where you can pick who you want to get.
  • Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?
  • Ultra
    8547 posts Moderator
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?

    Lets wait for Conquest 9 to finish first before we ask about Conquest 10
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?

    I'm sure we'll hear too many people are doing it too quick so it needs to be harder and cost more. I mean, you know they won't dial it back.
  • I’m mainly curious who the Conquest character will be. Might convince me to spend Currency on the RC… probably not but I might.
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    I’m mainly curious who the Conquest character will be. Might convince me to spend Currency on the RC… probably not but I might.

    My bet is it will be Dengar's ship: Punishing One
  • Kyno
    32049 posts Moderator
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?

    Changes.
  • DinoMight wrote: »
    Kyno, you want constructive discussion, but do you have *any* examples of user ideas being adopted (no, a year+ later doesn't count)? How about a response from a developer other than "ill bring it to the team." What about some follow-up, like "the team discussed and plan on doing a, but not b and c."

    Even simple things often repeated like feat counter go nowhere. And yet, all the changes to increase monetization, including creating an insane feat structure, go forward regardless of massive player disatisfaction. At this point, your words ring completely hollow.

    So, here's an idea that everyone can discuss and comment on. Scrap the linear map in conquest. Make it a massive Chinese checkers-like board (could be just a giant circle if you want to keep it simple, or heck, change the shape whenever you want). All nodes revealed, all data disks revealed, everything can be seen. You start on the outside and work your way in. Number of keycards increase as you go toward the center. Battles get harder as you go toward the center. All feats are universal.

    Players get to choose their path through the board. They actually will want to spend time playing ning everything out. And here's the kicker, don't worry about it being too easy for some and too hard for others. Everyone gets the *same exact board.* the differences in rosters may lead people to choose different paths. And as CG sees certain node types and patterns being used too much, they can rearrange or change them in subsequent runs. It becomes a completely tunable but totally user-driven game mode.

    You can let people spend thousands of crystals refreshing to just skirt the outside easy battles, or they can dive deep to get max keycards per battle, but they may miss some important data disk nodes on the way to minimize their energy usage. You can make data disk nodes cost energy to unlock, then allow card swapping be free. Make the nodes cost varying energy based on the "value" of the cards. Remember, they are static set by the map designer, so no worries about bad luck. You get what you "pay" for. This would allow some folks who have very heavy rosters try to avoid the disks altogether to save a bit of energy of they so choose. Imagine a system where you have many choices, and all of them have potential upsides and downsides, and you can plan a strategy to choose the ones that best suit your playstyle and roster.

    Encourage inner nodes or boss nodes with increased keycard rewards or feats, maybe associate purple data disks only with most inner boss nodes? So many possibilities to make this something for everyone, and give players the freedom to play it how they want while still having total control over the reward structure (a.k.a. monetization).

    I rarely go on this thread as it's so time consuming, but I went on now, saw this, and thought of two things.

    1) Ofc more important :wink:. Reminded me of a stupid maths question mistake where I put a circle's area as πr rather than πr^2.

    2) Amazing idea. Could imagine some of this happening, but don't think CG will do it all. Keeping up my hopes though.
    My discord - BabyYoda#4470 My swgoh.gg - https://swgoh.gg/p/648565123/
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?

    Changes.

    Will they be adding in crafting data disks and upgrading data disks if you get stuck with the same 5 or so at grey level?
  • Kyno
    32049 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Do we have any clues as to what’s happening for Conquest 10?

    Changes.

    Will they be adding in crafting data disks and upgrading data disks if you get stuck with the same 5 or so at grey level?

    No, not that I am aware of.
  • Hmm… a clue as to what the Deathmark Feat’s replacement is would be nice. I can’t find the name of it…
  • Kyno
    32049 posts Moderator
    edited October 10
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Hmm… a clue as to what the Deathmark Feat’s replacement is would be nice. I can’t find the name of it…
    The Conquest Sector 5 feat "Marked for Death" has been removed. In its place is the new feat, "One by One."

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/250192/content-update-10-07-2021#latest
    legk9t18vf0r.jpg

    https://wiki.swgoh.help/wiki/Conquest#Data_Disks
  • Oh. That’s… is JKR the only character who can Mark an enemy? GG/Piett/LV do allies.

    Still, not too bad. Same philosophy as DT and JKR can actually be used in teams.
  • I don't remember from last time this was in. Does attacking a grievous team and getting him to inflict mark on his own team count for this?
  • Which other characters aside from JKR can inflict this?
  • Zumwan wrote: »
    Which other characters aside from JKR can inflict this?

    As far as I know, JKR is the only character does inflict marked on enemies.

    GG and Admiral Piett inflict on allies.
  • Xcien
    2249 posts Member
    edited October 10
    The Conquest Sector 5 feat "Marked for Death" has been removed. In its place is the new feat, "One by One."

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/250192/content-update-10-07-2021#latest
    legk9t18vf0r.jpg

    https://wiki.swgoh.help/wiki/Conquest#Data_Disks

    So now you have to use 1 character to mark 40 enemies. Really helps reduce the grind, doesn’t it. It’s things like this that makes me wonder if CG even cares about player feedback.
    One may learn a great deal about a people by the stories they tell of others.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback has been noted.
  • Xcien wrote: »
    The Conquest Sector 5 feat "Marked for Death" has been removed. In its place is the new feat, "One by One."

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/250192/content-update-10-07-2021#latest
    legk9t18vf0r.jpg

    https://wiki.swgoh.help/wiki/Conquest#Data_Disks

    So now you have to use 1 character to mark 40 enemies. Really helps reduce the grind, doesn’t it. It’s things like this that makes me wonder if CG even cares about player feedback.

    Doesn't make me wonder that. Makes me wonder why they hate us so much.
  • Xcien
    2249 posts Member
    The Conquest Sector 5 feat "Marked for Death" has been removed. In its place is the new feat, "One by One."

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/250192/content-update-10-07-2021#latest
    legk9t18vf0r.jpg

    https://wiki.swgoh.help/wiki/Conquest#Data_Disks

    So now you have to use 1 character to mark 40 enemies. Really helps reduce the grind, doesn’t it. It’s things like this that makes me wonder if CG even cares about player feedback.

    Doesn't make me wonder that. Makes me wonder why they hate us so much.

    Can’t blame you for wondering that, given everything CG has done to this player base.
    One may learn a great deal about a people by the stories they tell of others.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback has been noted.
Sign In or Register to comment.