[MEGA] Road Ahead: October 2021

Replies

  • Nauros wrote: »
    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?

    Excellent point. That completely disproves kyno's chart as a theoretical minimum.
  • I’ll see if I can do the math. At least on total battles; total kills can vary a lot.

    Conq 7-9: 210 battles excluding overlap.

    50 DS battles - you’re also ‘forced’ to do 14 battles with Empire, Geos, and NS each. That leaves you with 8 DS battles that you don’t need, but those can fairly easily be covered by Bounty Hunters not using Mando/Greef. -50 battles.

    50 LS battles - you’re ‘forced’ to do 14 battles with Smugglers. You could also theoretically do the 10 only-Attacker and 10 no-Attacker battles with LS. You’re still on the hook for the last 16. -34 battles.

    That’s about it - you could also overlap the Maul/Savage feat with full DS and/or full Attackers, but it won’t make a difference in the theoretical minimum.

    Theoretical Minimum Battles: 126.


    Conq 10: 190 battles excluding overlap.

    20 Boba/Fennec - you can either do this at the same time you do Boba/Han or at the same time you do full BH. Either way this feat can overlap. -20 battles.

    40 Smugglers - you could do the 14 LS battles with your Smugglers. -14 battles.

    14 No Supports - can overlap with BH / Boba/Han / Smugglers. -14 battles.

    Theoretical Minimum Battles: 142.


    Conquest 7-9 is theoretically less battles to finish the “Complete X Battles with Y” feats. Of course the kill feats make a difference, but that depends majorly on what teams you can face / how many kills you can get in one “battle”.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    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?

    Yes they can correlate, you are 100% correct. In comparing each it seems like an unnecessary step and could lead to confusion, as battle count is ideal, and players may need more refreshes due to game play elements.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    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.

    I was very clear where I saw that information.

    The image was posted, you can see the difference in battle count.
  • Kyno I have much respect for the work you do for the community in getting us information. However it was a legitimate criticism that you weren’t clear on why you were saying it was less battles. There are five to ten posts from you that contextual clues suggested your reasoning was due to something directly from cg.

    It’s not until I directly ask that Reddit is mentioned and it becomes clear that your using something not from cg. You also continually used battles in those posts. The chart you are making your assertion from does not make any suggestion on how many battles it will take. It does zero analysis and just says how many kill with x or win with y there are.

    The road ahead is clear and accurate that more keycards will come from completing nodes in 10 than 7-9. The road ahead does not suggest that fewer battles will be needed which is good because that would be incorrect.

    The rest is opinion on whether cg has done enough to address player feedback.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    Yes they can correlate, you are 100% correct. In comparing each it seems like an unnecessary step and could lead to confusion, as battle count is ideal, and players may need more refreshes due to game play elements.

    What does this mean? Every refresh is 6 battles, regardless of how you play, right?
  • Kyno 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?

    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.

    I was very clear where I saw that information.

    The image was posted, you can see the difference in battle count.

    And many have pointed out that the chart has serious flaws... if it is trying to prove a point. So it's either fallacious or inconsequential.
  • This is the worst conquest that I ever seen. Continue this road and I bet players will start quitting.
  • Kyno 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?

    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.

    I was very clear where I saw that information.

    The image was posted, you can see the difference in battle count.

    You were not clear initially and only later posted the image.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    Yes they can correlate, you are 100% correct. In comparing each it seems like an unnecessary step and could lead to confusion, as battle count is ideal, and players may need more refreshes due to game play elements.

    What does this mean? Every refresh is 6 battles, regardless of how you play, right?

    Yes, but since some elements need a win and not just burning energy, refreshes dont necessarily capture the fact that you can lose and cost you more refreshes.
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Kyno 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?

    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.

    I was very clear where I saw that information.

    The image was posted, you can see the difference in battle count.

    And many have pointed out that the chart has serious flaws... if it is trying to prove a point. So it's either fallacious or inconsequential.

    Yes I realize there is incorrect math in that chart.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    Yes they can correlate, you are 100% correct. In comparing each it seems like an unnecessary step and could lead to confusion, as battle count is ideal, and players may need more refreshes due to game play elements.

    What does this mean? Every refresh is 6 battles, regardless of how you play, right?

    Yes, but since some elements need a win and not just burning energy, refreshes dont necessarily capture the fact that you can lose and cost you more refreshes.

    What? Winning and losing cost different amounts of energy? I seriously have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw here. Can you give me an example where a battle is not 20 energy or where a refresh is not 6 battles?
  • Kyno
    31980 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    Yes they can correlate, you are 100% correct. In comparing each it seems like an unnecessary step and could lead to confusion, as battle count is ideal, and players may need more refreshes due to game play elements.

    What does this mean? Every refresh is 6 battles, regardless of how you play, right?

    Yes, but since some elements need a win and not just burning energy, refreshes dont necessarily capture the fact that you can lose and cost you more refreshes.

    What? Winning and losing cost different amounts of energy? I seriously have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw here. Can you give me an example where a battle is not 20 energy or where a refresh is not 6 battles?

    Say a feat take 14 wins. A player attempts this and takes 15 battles due to a loss. That costs them more energy to do that feat. Referencing refreshes can lead to confusion, that is all.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I just wanted to say, I apologize for any confusion about what I was referencing, and for not double checking the information before speaking about it.

    No worries man. We’ve all said inaccurate things. All we can do is acknowledge the inaccuracies and move on. Similar to me suggesting the mark feat in conquest 9 was not comparable as a replacement for death mark feat in conquest 8. I was wrong and said so. No one held it against me which I appreciated
  • The sector 2 boss is a nice touch. Would be cool to have as a playable character at some point.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I just wanted to say, I apologize for any confusion about what I was referencing, and for not double checking the information before speaking about it.

    It's all good. Better to admit a mistake than to keep running with it. That's why it's important to show the work though. That way the facts can be argued and determined more easily.

    Can we now agree that the feats are now requiring more battles than before?

    Mostly due to the lack of overlap with the bh and smuggler feats where there was overlap with the ls/ds feats before. That is a needed change for the next conquest. Either the number should be reduced or they should be replaced with ls/ds feats. Or some combination of both.

    For example, having 15 by and 15 smuggler and then 30 ls and 30 ds would be closer than what it is now because there would be much more overlap.

    Personally I think the goal should be less battles from feats than last time since they started that was their goal in the road ahead. But at the very minimum it needs changed so that it isn't an increase when they said they wanted it decreased.

    And this isn't a change that can wait until the next set of conquests. They changed feats in the middle of the last set (to make it more grindy) so it is definitely possible to make the change after this one conquest. Any lipservice that doesn't immediately address the issue and state which feats will be changed is useless and shouldn't be believed given how different the road ahead was to the actual changes made.
  • 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 BH / scoundrels are good enough. Yet it is a pain got conquest still. R7 jango dies the first turn before he even moves because of the insane speed boost !!!
  • It is very difficult to find squads that BH can defeat here.
  • Rebmes wrote: »
    It is very difficult to find squads that BH can defeat here.

    Sector 1 boss is a good node for them. I've found a few others but they are random. But it is extremely tedious to do it over and over. The sector 1 boss can also be done with smugglers. I use Kira, next, han, chewie, and the 5th doesn't matter. My han and chewie are reliced, nest is g11, and the rest are trash (g7 maybe). Ise the debuff and detonator disks and it's possible.

    My bhs are all reliced (or the ones needed for executor are). Also cad and jango since they are needed for jmk. Bossk lead works fine.
  • Sector 1 boss is very entertaining with any form of Healing Immunity.
  • Is there a puzzle ?
  • The Conquest Pass + doesn't solve so many problems.

    Yes, it's awesome, but by no means is it necessary to win Conquest.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    DarthKatk wrote: »
    Giving the players more gear - Yes. Should've happened ages ago.
    Sith Raid sim - where's that?

    The rest - I'm sorry but it's garbage and you just seem intent on pushing more people away.
    You did nothing to ease the grind and dry humping in conquest and it is exactly that when you need to do 14 of the same battles with 5 different teams. Putting Conquest behind a paywall aswell? Wow, just wow. The greed is stong in this one.
    AND NEXT CONQUEST IS STARTING IN NOVEMBER 1!!! Weeeeee! Not like we just had 3 back to back to back Conquests already which resulted in a mass exodus of top tier players. What's a fourth one added straight after that eh?

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

    What Paywall for Conquest? You can play it and get all the same rewards you have been getting without $$.

    I thought you weren't on CG's payroll? I guess that was incorrect. If you don't see how they put Con-Quest behind a paywall you are either blind or paid off. They took a gamemode that everyone loved, stripped all of the enjoyment from it, and turned it into a massive chore and grindfest. They made it such a chore that people were willing to PAY OTHER PEOPLE TO PLAY THE GAME FOR THEM. And now they come out with this pass that tries to sell the solution to the problems that they invented for us. It's a garbage, scummy tactic and if you think the community doesn't see right through it then I repeat, you are blind. The gamemode of conquest isn't behind a paywall. But the solution to the massive issues with the gamemode that they purposely added in are behind a paywall. That is the problem and why everyone is rightfully ****. The gamemode was fantastic when it came out and everyone loved it. And they decided to screw literally everyone who plays the game by making it worse and then forcing you to pay money to try and get the enjoyment back from it. So effectively, they made conquest such a undesirable task that most people hate it. If you don't want to hate it, give me your money. Being pedantic about "well acktchually you can play conquest for free so everything is fine" is pointless and just makes you look bad. I guess it'll help you keep your shiny mod title though. So whatever. If you're going to bother replying to anyone on these threads anymore then please put at least 10 seconds of thought into what you're saying.

    The pass+ makes it suck less but it is a horrible grind that I actually hate nearly every battle. PERIOD. Nearly every time you want to use a team that can beat what is presented the pre-reqs say you can but it's only a battle win nothing for your feats ever. It's pretty much crap. It's about as enjoyable as getting punched in the groin. Now even with the best conquest cards you mostly have to use a FRESH GL with the BEST mods or you get outrun. It's really stupid actually. If it didn't take over a week to ENDURE it wouldn't be such a big deal but the fact it's unenjoyable makes what was FUN (first few conquests) into a reason to not play.
  • Looooki wrote: »
    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 BH / scoundrels are good enough. Yet it is a pain got conquest still. R7 jango dies the first turn before he even moves because of the insane speed boost !!!

    Some of my guildies says his jmk stomped by tuskens, so...lol
  • PorkGristle
    17 posts Member
    edited November 7
    And with the really dead beat changes to data disks, we are all losing more than last Conquest.

Sign In or Register to comment.