Add Feats to TW

TheRealNickEZ
677 posts Member
edited October 6
This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

Thoughts?

Replies

  • If all’s fair in love and war then probably feats are a bad idea -it should be up to the guild to work out the best tactics for the specific conditions rather than try and chase a random feat. HOWEVER I do like the idea of specific conditions being changed to spice things up (a bit like the old modifiers for CUP, Mace or Droids back in the day). So for one war, you could maybe have a modifier, where I don’t know, parent and offspring combos got some extra mechanics (Vader with Luke, Fetts, MT with Savage etc) or some other aspect of the storyline could be focussed on (like when Kenobi or Ventress teamed up with bounty hunters). It would add a bit of spice -but I think it needs to be reflected in the actual tactical combat to be meaningful.
  • I would love the feat "Win 10 TW in a row" or something like this, because my guild has won like 95% of our TW in the last 18 months, but because we are less than 30 active players we can never get the good rewards (we don't have enough GP), and it's quite frustrating. And it's really hard to recruit more people.
  • kalidor
    2082 posts Member
    This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

    Thoughts?

    If the feat just awarded GET1/2 and no banners, then sure that would be kinda neat. But I wouldn't want it to affect the outcome of the match. I'm also slightly biased against feats right now due to the recent conquest changes and lack of a feat counter.
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
  • DarthAsajj wrote: »
    I would love the feat "Win 10 TW in a row" or something like this, because my guild has won like 95% of our TW in the last 18 months, but because we are less than 30 active players we can never get the good rewards (we don't have enough GP), and it's quite frustrating. And it's really hard to recruit more people.

    You could always try looking for a merge. Or just join a fuller guild since there isn't a shortage.
  • "Defeat 6 GLs on defence with only 1 GL in your guild."

    That would be a pretty good one based on our last TW.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    edited October 6
    This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea, and how this post is not about Conquest 9 starting. I see a few possible paths:

    - we start each TW with feats selected by the dev team
    - we get to select from a list, that is generated after we place our teams
    - we "unlock" feats for our opponent, based on placing X number of teams on defense.

    The first one is probably the most viable, but if this is used as some sort of strategy and awarding banners, this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    2nd and 3rd would probably be huge balance and other issues for the dev team, and still have the same shortcoming of "who will like it".

    Much like 5v5 and 3v3 GAC, it would be interesting to see a mix of different layouts or builds of TW.
  • Monel
    2465 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea, and how this post is not about Conquest 9 starting. I see a few possible paths:

    - we start each TW with feats selected by the dev team
    - we get to select from a list, that is generated after we place our teams
    - we "unlock" feats for our opponent, based on placing X number of teams on defense.

    The first one is probably the most viable, but if this is used as some sort of strategy and awarding banners, this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    2nd and 3rd would probably be huge balance and other issues for the dev team, and still have the same shortcoming of "who will like it".

    Much like 5v5 and 3v3 GAC, it would be interesting to see a mix of different layouts or builds of TW.

    All of this, but since you brought it up; When is Conquest 9 starting?
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Monel wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea, and how this post is not about Conquest 9 starting. I see a few possible paths:

    - we start each TW with feats selected by the dev team
    - we get to select from a list, that is generated after we place our teams
    - we "unlock" feats for our opponent, based on placing X number of teams on defense.

    The first one is probably the most viable, but if this is used as some sort of strategy and awarding banners, this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    2nd and 3rd would probably be huge balance and other issues for the dev team, and still have the same shortcoming of "who will like it".

    Much like 5v5 and 3v3 GAC, it would be interesting to see a mix of different layouts or builds of TW.

    All of this, but since you brought it up; When is Conquest 9 starting?

    jo2rlvafyxp3.jpg
  • Probably need to fix the TW matchmaking first. We had a 68 mil GP deficit in participating GP last TW and now we have a 50 mil GP advantage in participating GP this TW. It's an interesting concept though, as long the feats were fairly generic....not win 20 battles with Jawas or anything crazy like that, lol.
  • Monel
    2465 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Monel wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    This could allow for another level of strategy and engagement between guild members.

    Thoughts?

    I like the idea, and how this post is not about Conquest 9 starting. I see a few possible paths:

    - we start each TW with feats selected by the dev team
    - we get to select from a list, that is generated after we place our teams
    - we "unlock" feats for our opponent, based on placing X number of teams on defense.

    The first one is probably the most viable, but if this is used as some sort of strategy and awarding banners, this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    2nd and 3rd would probably be huge balance and other issues for the dev team, and still have the same shortcoming of "who will like it".

    Much like 5v5 and 3v3 GAC, it would be interesting to see a mix of different layouts or builds of TW.

    All of this, but since you brought it up; When is Conquest 9 starting?

    jo2rlvafyxp3.jpg

  • Monel
    2465 posts Member
    n4s8h1nzar8d.gif
  • Kyno wrote: »

    this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    Isn’t that a problem though? Players who seek predictable outcomes based on predestined strategies or even who feel entitled to outcomes due to shopping choices they’ve made? It’s not how real life combat works and that viewpoint can be a real deadening hand on the enjoyability of territory war. Adapting, thinking on your feet, taking considered risks, solving unexpected problems with your mates and staying focussed on the objectives no matter what gets thrown at you - that’s what makes it fun.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Wed_Santa wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    this may not be liked in a similar fashion to the character buffs to TW. Yes they were liked, but not by all due to its effect on strategies/characters/teams that have been built up.

    Isn’t that a problem though? Players who seek predictable outcomes based on predestined strategies or even who feel entitled to outcomes due to shopping choices they’ve made? It’s not how real life combat works and that viewpoint can be a real deadening hand on the enjoyability of territory war. Adapting, thinking on your feet, taking considered risks, solving unexpected problems with your mates and staying focussed on the objectives no matter what gets thrown at you - that’s what makes it fun.

    Yes, "everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth", but in a game where developing a plan to a working state can take months or longer (and/or $$), it is understandable that players may not want a developed plan to then be shot due to Mace going super saiyan, due to a modifier.

    The overall strategy in this game is more like chess than a fight. There are moved and counter moves, but all within the "rules of the game". The modifiers change the rules of the game, which can be disliked.

    I loved the modifiers, I really appreciated those being added, and I think it made the mode fun, but I also understand that not everyone felt this way and why.

    I was just drawing a comparison, not trying to be dismissive of the idea or the fact that some would like that.

    There are some conversations going on about ways to add fun elements to individual game modes, but we have no direct insight on how those are being introduced. I dont think they will be as wide spread or all encompassing as those modifiers were, but we will have to wait and see.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Wed_Santa wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »

    "everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth",.

    We need more Iron Mike in the forums. I wonder what he’d say about , oh I don’t know, waiting for the next Conquest?
  • Oops- dunno what I did there but yeah - we need more Iron Mike in the forums
  • This would not be good for everyone guild. Not every guild is able to coordinate to the level that would be needed to complete feats. Plus, this would add more planning to a game that most people are currently complaining about time commitments on.
Sign In or Register to comment.