[MEGA] Road Ahead: October 2021

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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?

    To some extent they have a limited tool set to work with on feats, so not everything can just be a gear check.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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.

    I'm sorry that I cannot interpret all things the way a player means, i can only go by what is said, and yes reading what someone literally said, is the proper way to discuss a topic. Unless they try to make an analogy, or some other context clues that lead somewhere else.

    The person I responded to said they didnt follow on an element they said, when in fact they did. I clarified this, that is all. This was then taken down a different path, and was not what I was talking about in my post.

    The path it was taken down was in some way to say that they didnt make a change they said they did. I pointed out that they did in a way do that, by addressing the battle count.

    I 100% agree that they did not address the repeated battles. They never said they did either. I am now just pointing out that there is another element to the grindyness that was addressed. That is all.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?
  • Options
    763u0g89acif.jpeg

    I found what I was referring to. Now granted this is max efficiency so ignoring smugglers, bb plus a few others it is possible for max crate so120-125 is likely bare minimum. However, I skipped smugglers, nsers, rebel fights plus 2 boss feats and 4 other keycards for 7-9. At a bare minimum this removes 27 fights for conquest 7-9 so 108 battles was possible. Obviously I’m not double checking this guys work. I’ve provided information that suggests max crate will take more battles even before comparing specific feats between the two and their effect on how players feel about them.
  • Options
    It’s the Reddit thread titled have you heard the tale of conquest 10?
  • Options
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    Agree. If Kyno wants to prove it's less battles, then he needs to show his work. I saw it on reddit is not proof. If it had been extensively discussed in these forums, I'd be fine with just a link to that thread but some of us don't frequent reddit.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    Agree. If Kyno wants to prove it's less battles, then he needs to show his work. I saw it on reddit is not proof. If it had been extensively discussed in these forums, I'd be fine with just a link to that thread but some of us don't frequent reddit.

    Nether do I but other players post such things on discord.

    It doesnt bother me if you dont believe me, and it wasn't my work. Just relaying information.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg
  • Ragnarok_COTF
    1807 posts Member
    edited November 2021
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

    That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.
  • Options
    Regarding the number of battles required, I'm gong to assert that the theoretical minimum is a pointless metric because so few people could ever achieve it. So let's consider a practical minimum from a player with an advanced roster that tries to be efficient. I'll use myself and a solid guildmate (https://swgoh.gg/p/685325334/) as benchmarks.

    For C1-6, we both got max crate without any refreshes.

    For C7, I used 11 refreshes. However, I finished a couple days early and wasn't as efficient as I could have been because Conquest was newly revamped. I believe my guildmate used 10 refreshes in C7.

    For C8, he used 8 and I used 9. I finished 1.5 days early, so I could have been 8 had I been more patient.

    For C9, we both wanted to do it in 7. IRL got busy for me, so I made some mistakes, and it wound up costing me 9 (only needed 1 battle from the 9th refresh). I don't recall his final count, but I do believe he fell short of 7, so let's say 8 or 9.

    So I think it's fair to say that a practical goal for C7-9, for an endgame player that wants to be efficient, was 8-10 refreshes.

    C10 is not done yet, so I can't give a definitive answer. There appear to be 22 combat nodes per sector, 110 total. We get 91 battles for free (6 per day for 14 days plus 7 for initial 144 energy). That's 19 extra battles.

    All the MB nodes require 2 attempts to get both feats. At 2-3 keycards for 1 battle, redoing the MB nodes is very efficient. So that's 5 more battles.

    Ditto for the S2 and S3 boss feats, so that's 2 more battles. S1 boss feats were both easy to get in 1 fight, so not counting them here. I'm considering the S4 GamGrd feat to be unviable for most, so I'm skipping that. And the S5 BAM+BK feat is either doable at the same time as the no GL feat or may very well be unviable.

    I'm at 5 refreshes already, and I haven't talked about any of the feats. If we can only afford to pass on 32(?) banners, then we can't skip many feats. I already skipped 4 for the GG feat, so I have to do all but 1 of the Global Feats.

    40 with BH and 20 with Boba+Fennec can be done simultaneously. Let's say you can get the 100 kills with Boba+Jango in the same 40 battles as well. That's 40 battles for 3 global feats. How many of these can be done while powering through the initial 110 battles? Based on what I've seen so far (early S3), I think calling this 20 extra battles is being VERY conservative.

    I can only skip one Global feat. The 500 kills one is free. That means either Smugglers or Boba+Han. I think it's reasonable to say that the latter would be easier to earn passively than the former. If you're really on top of your game and doing the concurrent BH feats in the paragraph above, I think this would require at least 10 extra battles after completing S5.

    I'm already at 10 mandatory refreshes. I haven't even looked at sector feats. I've assumed no losses or retries to get stars. And I'm assuming the ability to work on feats first pass at a rate much higher than I've been managing.

    So practically speaking, until someone can finish C10 in fewer than 10 refreshes, C10 is grindiest Conquest to date. If someone does manage to do so, I will gladly recant and change my stance to it being grindier for me.

    Hopefully this analysis is worth more than something Kyno saw on Reddit or Discord.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Absolutely the grind is different for each player, and I dont expect them to be able to make changes that will have the same effect on each player.

    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    All that being said, if they move away from feats, and move feats to the global area, it allows for things to be done in with less battle count, and allow for more overlapping. This seems to be what was done this round, to address elements of the grind.

    No not every player is going to feel this the same way, we all have different rosters.

    They have some number of refreshes or crystal input they are going to be looking for, I dont expect the challenge of "doing in less than X refreshes" to be something that will be consistent or a measure of the grindiness.

    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    They are not making the statements they do based on a single player, or single demographic. They have to look at things like battle count and other elements to get a correlation and adjust things based on that.

    I 100% agree they did not fully address the grind and should have made more adjustments to things like repeat battles, and even the battle count for feats, even if it means more nodes to do or a shorter timeframe of the event to help keep the pressure they way they want.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

    That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.


    Not that I really know the background behind the chart, but the math doesn't seem right. 14+14+14+14+14+20+20+40+40=190, not 170.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Absolutely the grind is different for each player, and I dont expect them to be able to make changes that will have the same effect on each player.

    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    All that being said, if they move away from feats, and move feats to the global area, it allows for things to be done in with less battle count, and allow for more overlapping. This seems to be what was done this round, to address elements of the grind.

    No not every player is going to feel this the same way, we all have different rosters.

    They have some number of refreshes or crystal input they are going to be looking for, I dont expect the challenge of "doing in less than X refreshes" to be something that will be consistent or a measure of the grindiness.

    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    They are not making the statements they do based on a single player, or single demographic. They have to look at things like battle count and other elements to get a correlation and adjust things based on that.

    I 100% agree they did not fully address the grind and should have made more adjustments to things like repeat battles, and even the battle count for feats, even if it means more nodes to do or a shorter timeframe of the event to help keep the pressure they way they want.

    No..

    No to the Grind is different to each player...

    Different rosters do not excuse the increased difficulty of the Feats from Global to Sector..
    Not when GL Counters are now nerfed and emphasis is on getting the same 6 GLs...

    They wanted this and now CG has to live with the consequences of losing their fan base.


    Its bad @Kyno, really bad..
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

    That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

    Misleading? How. That chart makes no assertion about how you attack the problem, its just laying out what the problem is, and how it changed.

    How you or any player attacks this is going to be dependent on personal factors.

    Yes there is a math error on that one summation...not sure how someone does that using a spreadsheet.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    This seems to be the crux of your point. It may well be true that the theoretical minimum for C10 is lower than C7-9. I won't argue that, nor have I seen others dispute it, because the theoretical minimum is not relevant. What matters is what is practically achievable.
    Kyno wrote: »
    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    I would be shocked if there is anyone, even a single person, that can complete C10 in fewer than 8-10 refreshes, which was a reasonable expectation from C7-9. If this were simply a case of being easier for those with great BH/Smugglers and harder for the rest, I would have no serious objections.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

    That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

    Misleading? How. That chart makes no assertion about how you attack the problem, its just laying out what the problem is, and how it changed.

    How you or any player attacks this is going to be dependent on personal factors.

    Yes there is a math error on that one summation...not sure how someone does that using a spreadsheet.

    Maybe I misunderstood the message. I thought that chart was meant to prove that C10 has a lower theoretical battle requirement for max crate than C7-9. If that was not the intent, then I apologize for reacting inapproiately.
  • Nauros
    5429 posts Member
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

    That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

    Misleading? How. That chart makes no assertion about how you attack the problem, its just laying out what the problem is, and how it changed.

    How you or any player attacks this is going to be dependent on personal factors.

    Yes there is a math error on that one summation...not sure how someone does that using a spreadsheet.

    The thing is that LS/DS battles are practically autocompleted with the other feats. NS, Empire and Geos have no other way of completion than pure DS, so you should at the very least subtract 42 from that number because there is not even a theoretical possibility to do those separately. Not sure if there is any DS smuggler. Suddenly it's not looking that good, is it?
  • Options
    Ripperpa wrote: »
    I have played since November 2016 with an 8 mo break around the time of the malak fiasco. So I missed Rey and slkr. I started up again about the time they announced see and jml. In that time (about a year but a tad bit more), I've finished gas, got jkl, see, jml, executor, and jmk.

    Teach us your secrets!

    Teach me YOUR secrets. You got 3 GL's and Executor in a year? I just got my first (JML) over the last 8/9 months and am working on Executor now.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    This seems to be the crux of your point. It may well be true that the theoretical minimum for C10 is lower than C7-9. I won't argue that, nor have I seen others dispute it, because the theoretical minimum is not relevant. What matters is what is practically achievable.
    Kyno wrote: »
    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    I would be shocked if there is anyone, even a single person, that can complete C10 in fewer than 8-10 refreshes, which was a reasonable expectation from C7-9. If this were simply a case of being easier for those with great BH/Smugglers and harder for the rest, I would have no serious objections.

    It's not my argument, I brought this point up, to show that they did move away from feats, because someone said they didnt. The numbers show they did, granted not to the extent I thought they did.

    I agree that the practice will be different, but that is also going to be different for each player, and have difficulties in comparing between 2 different seasons when talking about grinding, as my roster may allow me to do things differently this round than the previous one.

    I just think there are issues using the amount of refreshes as an example, as there are play factors in there, that effect that needed number. Even though players may not hit theoretical numbers based on the number of wins needed, that at least avoids the losses due to game play and different teams seen.

    Either one has its issues, and the I doubt the dev team even try's to take losses into account, more than just "noise" in the average. So using the battles needed seemed like the best avenue to look at the changes made, and keeps player specific factors out.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    This seems to be the crux of your point. It may well be true that the theoretical minimum for C10 is lower than C7-9. I won't argue that, nor have I seen others dispute it, because the theoretical minimum is not relevant. What matters is what is practically achievable.
    Kyno wrote: »
    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    I would be shocked if there is anyone, even a single person, that can complete C10 in fewer than 8-10 refreshes, which was a reasonable expectation from C7-9. If this were simply a case of being easier for those with great BH/Smugglers and harder for the rest, I would have no serious objections.

    It's not my argument, I brought this point up, to show that they did move away from feats, because someone said they didnt. The numbers show they did, granted not to the extent I thought they did.

    I agree that the practice will be different, but that is also going to be different for each player, and have difficulties in comparing between 2 different seasons when talking about grinding, as my roster may allow me to do things differently this round than the previous one.

    I just think there are issues using the amount of refreshes as an example, as there are play factors in there, that effect that needed number. Even though players may not hit theoretical numbers based on the number of wins needed, that at least avoids the losses due to game play and different teams seen.

    Either one has its issues, and the I doubt the dev team even try's to take losses into account, more than just "noise" in the average. So using the battles needed seemed like the best avenue to look at the changes made, and keeps player specific factors out.

    I came across that chart and thought that might have been what you were referring to.

    No one benefitted on a theoretical or practical level by changing the ds/ls feats to bh/smugglers. Everyone at every level that is going to achieve max crate will need more battles. Bh/smugglers just don’t work as well with other feats as ls/ds.

    It is correct that the road ahead said the emphasis switched more to nodes and away from feats if you look at the number of keycards. However, you need more battles to achieve sufficient keycards to achieve max crate. You are cherry picking a segment of the feats and not doing any analysis on them.

    So we are left with more work that feels more laborious.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    This seems to be the crux of your point. It may well be true that the theoretical minimum for C10 is lower than C7-9. I won't argue that, nor have I seen others dispute it, because the theoretical minimum is not relevant. What matters is what is practically achievable.
    Kyno wrote: »
    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    I would be shocked if there is anyone, even a single person, that can complete C10 in fewer than 8-10 refreshes, which was a reasonable expectation from C7-9. If this were simply a case of being easier for those with great BH/Smugglers and harder for the rest, I would have no serious objections.

    I just think there are issues using the amount of refreshes as an example, as there are play factors in there, that effect that needed number.
    ...

    So using the battles needed seemed like the best avenue to look at the changes made, and keeps player specific factors out.

    Could you clarify? I don't understand the difference between refreshes needed and battles needed. Are they not different units of the same measurement?
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    Agree. If Kyno wants to prove it's less battles, then he needs to show his work. I saw it on reddit is not proof. If it had been extensively discussed in these forums, I'd be fine with just a link to that thread but some of us don't frequent reddit.

    Nether do I but other players post such things on discord.

    It doesnt bother me if you dont believe me, and it wasn't my work. Just relaying information.

    It is sometimes annoying when you relay information from sources such as reddit without fully disclosing where it came from. Part of that is the fact that you relay information from the devs and it sometimes is difficult to differentiate the official info from your opinion.

    But the fact remains that if you want to claim the math works out, show your work. I'm not doing the math for your claim.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Drathuk916 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

    The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

    So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

    And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

    So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

    You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

    I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

    You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

    I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

    You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

    It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

    I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

    6ke3zlyf93o1.jpg

    If you look at 100 ls/ds battles and compare that to 80 battles with two factions and see that as an improvement, I can't help you.

    Considering there are very few mixed teams, you get those almost entirely from just clearing the zones.

    If you remove those (which is more accurate), then your math no longer works. If you remove only half of those (assuming a ls or ds focused roster), your math still is only even.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Absolutely the grind is different for each player, and I dont expect them to be able to make changes that will have the same effect on each player.

    With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

    All that being said, if they move away from feats, and move feats to the global area, it allows for things to be done in with less battle count, and allow for more overlapping. This seems to be what was done this round, to address elements of the grind.

    No not every player is going to feel this the same way, we all have different rosters.

    They have some number of refreshes or crystal input they are going to be looking for, I dont expect the challenge of "doing in less than X refreshes" to be something that will be consistent or a measure of the grindiness.

    The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

    They are not making the statements they do based on a single player, or single demographic. They have to look at things like battle count and other elements to get a correlation and adjust things based on that.

    I 100% agree they did not fully address the grind and should have made more adjustments to things like repeat battles, and even the battle count for feats, even if it means more nodes to do or a shorter timeframe of the event to help keep the pressure they way they want.

    Changing 100 ls/ds battles to 80 with two c or d team factions isn't going to be easier for anyone. It takes away options.
Sign In or Register to comment.