[MEGA] Road Ahead: October 2021

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Zumwan wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Is that the case for Normal mode as well?

    Should be, I dont know the difference in feats between the 2 modes.
  • Options
    I’m just letting my R8 SEE rampage through sector 1 with Boba, Han, and Fennec. I can pick the lost tickets up later.

    And at this point, I don’t care. I have my Maul. I just need to get enough Currency to finish 7 starring the RC, and then Conquest will have no hold on me besides Boba, and I can live without him.
  • Options
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    I’m just letting my R8 SEE rampage through sector 1 with Boba, Han, and Fennec. I can pick the lost tickets up later.

    And at this point, I don’t care. I have my Maul. I just need to get enough Currency to finish 7 starring the RC, and then Conquest will have no hold on me besides Boba, and I can live without him.

    Add Jango to double your chance of My Father Before Me kills
  • Options
    DarthKatk wrote: »

    The mode specific abilities. Idk who thought of that idea but whoever did or maybe whoever approved that idea should be fired. It is just bad. You give someone a buff for only TW - how the hell are players supposed to test the best comps and counters if the char behaves differently to how he does in arena? Guilds can lose their wars because this "cool touch".

    Could not agree with this more. What a horribly stupid idea.

  • Options
    I play Swgoh from 2017 and never, never saw such blatant display of avidity like with the conquest changes.
    Honestly guys, it is absolutely ok to make revenues but not like this. Disgusting.
  • Options
    Kathiyitis wrote: »
    DarthKatk wrote: »

    The mode specific abilities. Idk who thought of that idea but whoever did or maybe whoever approved that idea should be fired. It is just bad. You give someone a buff for only TW - how the hell are players supposed to test the best comps and counters if the char behaves differently to how he does in arena? Guilds can lose their wars because this "cool touch".

    Could not agree with this more. What a horribly stupid idea.

    In arena you face single team with silly speed, TW dont.
  • Options
    Anyone else think Conquest pass is a waste of time? Forcing f2p players to use cash when they might not be able to afford it 😞
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Zakracoon wrote: »
    Anyone else think Conquest pass is a waste of time? Forcing f2p players to use cash when they might not be able to afford it 😞

    No one is forced to buy the BP.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Zakracoon wrote: »
    Anyone else think Conquest pass is a waste of time? Forcing f2p players to use cash when they might not be able to afford it 😞

    No one is forced to buy the BP.

    I might have considered purchasing it if there were BFSoJ shards in normal mode battle pass, but it's only Maul. Possible feedback for CG to make more money?

    Hoping to get SEE in next couple of months, which should get me closer to the 4mil hurdle for Hard mode so I can get more shards.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

  • Options
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    I’m just letting my R8 SEE rampage through sector 1 with Boba, Han, and Fennec. I can pick the lost tickets up later.

    And at this point, I don’t care. I have my Maul. I just need to get enough Currency to finish 7 starring the RC, and then Conquest will have no hold on me besides Boba, and I can live without him.

    Don't forget to add chewpio to the mix and get the evasion down feat while you go.
  • nottenst
    708 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    Options
    I see the map for the "Hard path", and see that there is an extra choice of Scavenger or Disks when you come across them on the map that way. How much better is that extra node? [And I see in the other Conquest thread that it is a random unknown that might be as good as we got in previous Conquests.]
  • Options
    nottenst wrote: »
    I see the map for the "Hard path", and see that there is an extra choice of Scavenger or Disks when you come across them on the map that way. How much better is that extra node?

    RNG. Could be better, could be the same, could be worse.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

    I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

    It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

    I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

    It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.

    Total battle count wasn't what the community was complaining about. It was repetitive battles. CG said they heard us and then went from 14 battles with one faction to 40. And they wonder why we're upset. That's about as tone deaf as it gets.

    You can't accurately measure how many battles it'll take to clear the feats. It will vary by a lot. If it were a 40 battles with jmk, you could maybe assume that they could do it as they go since jmk can steam roll most anything. But when it's 40 battles with a d team like smugglers, it'll likely be 40 extra battles on sector 1 against the weakest team they can find because against a good team, smugglers have a poor win rate.

    So on paper, it may be less battles but in reality, it really isn't. And it doesn't take a genius to know that. So the only conclusion I can draw is that CG knew it was going to be just as grindy and spun it (lied) to say it would be better.

    Just because they leave themselves a "from a certain point of view" it wasn't a lie (ep 6 pun intended), doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. It just means they knew it was misleading and took the time to have an excuse later. Why not be honest.

    If they had said we heard you don't like grindy feats but don't care. If you want the max rewards, it requires the grind, that would have at least been honest.
  • Options
    At first I had found the idea of ​​the Conquest interesting. But it seems to be getting worse every time.
    First of all, this will be the only place we can get fragments of Commander Ahsoka, Maul and the new Boba Fett? In fact Ahsoka doesn't even come as a reward anymore… Will every new character come to this Conquest now? Legendary events like Thrawn’s, Chewie’s and C-3PO’s just don't exist anymore?
    I started the hard mode in this new Conquest, but it is unreasonably difficult. So I have to spend crystals every time to refresh the energy. And another ridiculous situation that I noticed, I don't know if it's true, as the character's vigor drops, he gets weaker. If it's below 50% it's even harder to win a battle. Just… why, CG??
    With that, the Conquest becomes tiring and quite uninteresting. But the worst thing is that, to get fragments of these three great characters, you have to participate in the Conquest. But it's a complete headache and no fun experience 😞.
    This Conquest is just another cunning ploy to get money out of players.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

    I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

    It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.

    Total battle count wasn't what the community was complaining about. It was repetitive battles. CG said they heard us and then went from 14 battles with one faction to 40. And they wonder why we're upset. That's about as tone deaf as it gets.

    You can't accurately measure how many battles it'll take to clear the feats. It will vary by a lot. If it were a 40 battles with jmk, you could maybe assume that they could do it as they go since jmk can steam roll most anything. But when it's 40 battles with a d team like smugglers, it'll likely be 40 extra battles on sector 1 against the weakest team they can find because against a good team, smugglers have a poor win rate.

    So on paper, it may be less battles but in reality, it really isn't. And it doesn't take a genius to know that. So the only conclusion I can draw is that CG knew it was going to be just as grindy and spun it (lied) to say it would be better.

    Just because they leave themselves a "from a certain point of view" it wasn't a lie (ep 6 pun intended), doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. It just means they knew it was misleading and took the time to have an excuse later. Why not be honest.

    If they had said we heard you don't like grindy feats but don't care. If you want the max rewards, it requires the grind, that would have at least been honest.

    Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".

    Also you may not have been, but yes the total battle count going up was part of what makes it more of a "second job", and grindy. I dont think many would have complained as much if it was still low cost and early style with repeat battles being the only down side.

    Anyway, I didnt say it was less grindy, but I can see how it is in some sense, because I can literally do less battles, that means less grind.

    Yes you can accurately measure a battle count from the feats listed. Use X toon in battle 40 times, means 40 battles. And so on. Yes some would have a range, when you talk about killing toons with another toon, but you can start at 1 kill per battle and theorize 5 kills if you wish. Either way at the end you would be able to compare last Conquest with this one, using the same style of break down for same style of feats.

    I'm not here to argue with you about how you feel about what they said. You can feel how you want. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's your feelings.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

    I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

    It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.

    Total battle count wasn't what the community was complaining about. It was repetitive battles. CG said they heard us and then went from 14 battles with one faction to 40. And they wonder why we're upset. That's about as tone deaf as it gets.

    You can't accurately measure how many battles it'll take to clear the feats. It will vary by a lot. If it were a 40 battles with jmk, you could maybe assume that they could do it as they go since jmk can steam roll most anything. But when it's 40 battles with a d team like smugglers, it'll likely be 40 extra battles on sector 1 against the weakest team they can find because against a good team, smugglers have a poor win rate.

    So on paper, it may be less battles but in reality, it really isn't. And it doesn't take a genius to know that. So the only conclusion I can draw is that CG knew it was going to be just as grindy and spun it (lied) to say it would be better.

    Just because they leave themselves a "from a certain point of view" it wasn't a lie (ep 6 pun intended), doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. It just means they knew it was misleading and took the time to have an excuse later. Why not be honest.

    If they had said we heard you don't like grindy feats but don't care. If you want the max rewards, it requires the grind, that would have at least been honest.

    Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".

    Also you may not have been, but yes the total battle count going up was part of what makes it more of a "second job", and grindy. I dont think many would have complained as much if it was still low cost and early style with repeat battles being the only down side.

    Anyway, I didnt say it was less grindy, but I can see how it is in some sense, because I can literally do less battles, that means less grind.

    Yes you can accurately measure a battle count from the feats listed. Use X toon in battle 40 times, means 40 battles. And so on. Yes some would have a range, when you talk about killing toons with another toon, but you can start at 1 kill per battle and theorize 5 kills if you wish. Either way at the end you would be able to compare last Conquest with this one, using the same style of break down for same style of feats.

    I'm not here to argue with you about how you feel about what they said. You can feel how you want. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's your feelings.

    Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

    So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    I am sorry, I think if a player, who invest heavy into BH/scoundrels, get their shiny new toy (new boba) easier, is fair.
  • Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    I am sorry, I think if a player, who invest heavy into BH/scoundrels, get their shiny new toy (new boba) easier, is fair.

    Whoosh...

    This is a discussion about grind, I think, maybe I'm the one who missed the boat.

    If there was one mini boss that required really good BH to beat to get max crate, I don't think there'd be nearly the uproar as asking us to do 40 battles with Smugglers.

    40 battles with such a terrible faction is especially insidious because CG should know full well that for the majority of the players, this will only be achievable against certain teams in early sectors. Which means it can't be worked on as you progress, which means more extra battles (relative to a decent faction) after you finish your first pass through S5.
  • Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    I am sorry, I think if a player, who invest heavy into BH/scoundrels, get their shiny new toy (new boba) easier, is fair.

    My whole point is that you can do a gear check without the grind. Or did you not read that part?
  • Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    I am sorry, I think if a player, who invest heavy into BH/scoundrels, get their shiny new toy (new boba) easier, is fair.

    Whoosh...

    This is a discussion about grind, I think, maybe I'm the one who missed the boat.

    If there was one mini boss that required really good BH to beat to get max crate, I don't think there'd be nearly the uproar as asking us to do 40 battles with Smugglers.

    40 battles with such a terrible faction is especially insidious because CG should know full well that for the majority of the players, this will only be achievable against certain teams in early sectors. Which means it can't be worked on as you progress, which means more extra battles (relative to a decent faction) after you finish your first pass through S5.

    No you didn't miss it. Thought for a minute I had complained about the gear check. But didn't. Personally, I still think putting resources into smugglers is a waste. They provide no benefit in the game other than one event that you don't need much more than han or chewie to beat.

    And I think you can probably skip that feat and still max crate but even if you can't, it's not worth the resources required for 3 conquests. Better to put that into bb who you need for feats, lord vader, and are an a team overall.
  • zatho
    747 posts Member
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".
    Actually this was our conversation. And while you tried to distract by playing with the words and taking them literally, @DarkHelmet1138 got my point.
    You know, Kyno, most people here (including me) are not native English speaker, so it is sometimes rude and impolite to take the wording literally instead of taking the cause of complaint seriously.
    I said the new compilation of feats requires more battles. You replied it actually takes less battles. However you totally neglected the fact that conquest is not only about feats but also about advancing through the sectors, and with current factions required for feats and ceasing stamina during battles, it is not possible (compared to previous conquests) to get a lot of feats done and simultaneosly work on global feats. At least not with an average roster, which was why I said it would be roster dependent. So in total you require even more battles to clear the map AND get the feats done.
    I really lost the fun in conquest by the fact that they actively prevent doing multiple feats at once, because this was what made that mode interesting. They proved this intention already last time where they changed some feats, preventing to complete them in the same sector simultaneosly.
    Additionally, they sold us a new hard path, but in fact they just removed some lines between nodes. Where we could choose different paths and end with two nodes of data disks to choose from, now we lose either the choice over the enemies or the choice over the data disk/scavenger node at the path's end. So they took us something away and sold it as a new feature. This is very dishonest from CG, close to a lie in the face.
  • Options
    @Kyno could you get an answer on why there's no Boba shards in the normal battle pass please? It would be far more tempting to buy if it did contain some. Hardly balance breaking to let people on normal get a few more shards since max crate only rewards 25.
  • Options
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".
    Actually this was our conversation. And while you tried to distract by playing with the words and taking them literally, @DarkHelmet1138 got my point.
    You know, Kyno, most people here (including me) are not native English speaker, so it is sometimes rude and impolite to take the wording literally instead of taking the cause of complaint seriously.
    I said the new compilation of feats requires more battles. You replied it actually takes less battles. However you totally neglected the fact that conquest is not only about feats but also about advancing through the sectors, and with current factions required for feats and ceasing stamina during battles, it is not possible (compared to previous conquests) to get a lot of feats done and simultaneosly work on global feats. At least not with an average roster, which was why I said it would be roster dependent. So in total you require even more battles to clear the map AND get the feats done.
    I really lost the fun in conquest by the fact that they actively prevent doing multiple feats at once, because this was what made that mode interesting. They proved this intention already last time where they changed some feats, preventing to complete them in the same sector simultaneosly.
    Additionally, they sold us a new hard path, but in fact they just removed some lines between nodes. Where we could choose different paths and end with two nodes of data disks to choose from, now we lose either the choice over the enemies or the choice over the data disk/scavenger node at the path's end. So they took us something away and sold it as a new feature. This is very dishonest from CG, close to a lie in the face.

    It's all good. It's not your use of language. Kyno routinely tries to find technicalities to explain CGs lies. They don't fool anyone.

    At this point it's just entertaining to see what how he'll try and spin it next.
  • Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    I am sorry, I think if a player, who invest heavy into BH/scoundrels, get their shiny new toy (new boba) easier, is fair.

    Whoosh...

    This is a discussion about grind, I think, maybe I'm the one who missed the boat.

    If there was one mini boss that required really good BH to beat to get max crate, I don't think there'd be nearly the uproar as asking us to do 40 battles with Smugglers.

    40 battles with such a terrible faction is especially insidious because CG should know full well that for the majority of the players, this will only be achievable against certain teams in early sectors. Which means it can't be worked on as you progress, which means more extra battles (relative to a decent faction) after you finish your first pass through S5.

    Aren't conquests before the same. Deathmarks, thetmal detonators...its all about grind.

    Or you want get prepared 100 times instead of 40 wins with smugglers?
  • zatho
    747 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    Aren't conquests before the same. Deathmarks, thetmal detonators...its all about grind.
    Or you want get prepared 100 times instead of 40 wins with smugglers?
    Yes, and we complained before the same about too much grind and repetitive feats. They listend to our feedback and made it even worse
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    zatho wrote: »
    Zumwan wrote: »
    It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
    Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

    Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

    That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

    The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

    Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

    The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

    This has nothing to do with a players roster.

    Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

    If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

    There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

    20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

    And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

    If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

    No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

    The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

    That is all I was saying.

    The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

    As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

    That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

    Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

    I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

    It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.

    Total battle count wasn't what the community was complaining about. It was repetitive battles. CG said they heard us and then went from 14 battles with one faction to 40. And they wonder why we're upset. That's about as tone deaf as it gets.

    You can't accurately measure how many battles it'll take to clear the feats. It will vary by a lot. If it were a 40 battles with jmk, you could maybe assume that they could do it as they go since jmk can steam roll most anything. But when it's 40 battles with a d team like smugglers, it'll likely be 40 extra battles on sector 1 against the weakest team they can find because against a good team, smugglers have a poor win rate.

    So on paper, it may be less battles but in reality, it really isn't. And it doesn't take a genius to know that. So the only conclusion I can draw is that CG knew it was going to be just as grindy and spun it (lied) to say it would be better.

    Just because they leave themselves a "from a certain point of view" it wasn't a lie (ep 6 pun intended), doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. It just means they knew it was misleading and took the time to have an excuse later. Why not be honest.

    If they had said we heard you don't like grindy feats but don't care. If you want the max rewards, it requires the grind, that would have at least been honest.

    Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".

    Also you may not have been, but yes the total battle count going up was part of what makes it more of a "second job", and grindy. I dont think many would have complained as much if it was still low cost and early style with repeat battles being the only down side.

    Anyway, I didnt say it was less grindy, but I can see how it is in some sense, because I can literally do less battles, that means less grind.

    Yes you can accurately measure a battle count from the feats listed. Use X toon in battle 40 times, means 40 battles. And so on. Yes some would have a range, when you talk about killing toons with another toon, but you can start at 1 kill per battle and theorize 5 kills if you wish. Either way at the end you would be able to compare last Conquest with this one, using the same style of break down for same style of feats.

    I'm not here to argue with you about how you feel about what they said. You can feel how you want. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's your feelings.

    Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

    So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

    So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

    So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.
Sign In or Register to comment.