Offering a path with a different outcome, involves player agency and added thought about your actions. Sounds interesting.
You have to choose the path, and choose to stay on it, so not sure where the choice was removed.
Kyno, I really respect your voice in the forums, and really appreciate the work you do here, but you have to see that objectively speaking this is worse than previous conquests, right? Before, we would be able to see the disc options in two separate paths and choose which one to target. Now, if we want to have the opportunity to pick from two nodes, we have to follow a preset (and obtuse) path before seeing what the choices are. If we deviate from the path, we lose the choice. Without even going into whether or not it is fair or "ruins" conquest, you have to admit that it is objectively less player agency than before.
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
I’m getting the feeling that they might have actually coded the extra disk node to offer, or have the chance of offering, slightly better options, specifically so they could say the path offered better stuff. So far each bonus disk node I’ve seen has had a blue disk in sector 1, which isn’t unheard of but seems “better”.
Sure would be nice to know that for sure though and not have to just guess at it. And it also begs the question that if they did go in to code that then why the heck couldn’t they fix the duplicate disks thing…
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
I’m getting the feeling that they might have actually coded the extra disk node to offer, or have the chance of offering, slightly better options, specifically so they could say the path offered better stuff. So far each bonus disk node I’ve seen has had a blue disk in sector 1, which isn’t unheard of but seems “better”.
Sure would be nice to know that for sure though and not have to just guess at it. And it also begs the question that if they did go in to code that then why the heck couldn’t they fix the duplicate disks thing…
I’m pretty sure they’ve always been able to tweak Disk Nodes’ “better loot”. The nodes after each Sector Boss are almost always good (or at least offer better Disks than the others in their sector).
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
I’m getting the feeling that they might have actually coded the extra disk node to offer, or have the chance of offering, slightly better options, specifically so they could say the path offered better stuff. So far each bonus disk node I’ve seen has had a blue disk in sector 1, which isn’t unheard of but seems “better”.
Sure would be nice to know that for sure though and not have to just guess at it. And it also begs the question that if they did go in to code that then why the heck couldn’t they fix the duplicate disks thing…
That's RNG and I can tell you that for others, like myself, that is NOT the case.
NO ENTRENCHED
NO PURPLE DISKS
1 BLUE (Caustic Emissions, whoopie)
All others have no synergy and some new ones DON'T STACK INTENTIONALLY
Easy and normal mode now have increased energy cost.
Players who’ve been doing normal mode can’t because of the GP requirement even though we were assured that wouldn’t happen (not a knock on kyno since it’s not his fault, but of course it’s bugged out)
The hard path doesn’t offer any better rewards as promised and is in no way clear based on the current layout so people may not have any idea if they’re on it or not.
The free path of rewards has less in between rewards in terms of mod slicing materials at the very least.
There are still duplicate or triplicate data disks in the same caches.
The enemies are still repetitive with little difference than the last batch of conquests.
The feats are still overly repetitive and insanely time consuming and grindy. Possibly even more so this time.
Stamina and energy refresh rates remain unchanged.
Data disk swap costs remains unless you pay $30.
Still no in battle feat counter after more than a year since we’ve been demanding it since GC’s came into play….
So…devs. Wanna keep standing by that statement you listened to community feedback? You guys didn’t listen to us at all. Conquest is still just as much of a time consuming grind full of bugs and repetitive nonsense as before. Keep lying to us and keep pushing a broken product and see how loyal your players stay, or even how much longer they play. How about actually LISTENING to your community and quality test your game before releasing the same broken garbage and have the audacity to tell us to spend $30 to fix your self imposed problems.
Or at the very least be honest about it.
If CG likes the grindy feats they should just say so.
If they want to require a "special path" to get the exact same data disc choices as we had before. They should sell it as that. There are no increased rewards for the hard path.
Why keep trying to spin so much? That just makes players angrier when the truth comes out.
Did they really think we wouldn't notice? It's pretty hard not to.
Offering a path with a different outcome, involves player agency and added thought about your actions. Sounds interesting.
You have to choose the path, and choose to stay on it, so not sure where the choice was removed.
Kyno, I really respect your voice in the forums, and really appreciate the work you do here, but you have to see that objectively speaking this is worse than previous conquests, right? Before, we would be able to see the disc options in two separate paths and choose which one to target. Now, if we want to have the opportunity to pick from two nodes, we have to follow a preset (and obtuse) path before seeing what the choices are. If we deviate from the path, we lose the choice. Without even going into whether or not it is fair or "ruins" conquest, you have to admit that it is objectively less player agency than before.
Yeah, I don't know why Kyno is digging in so hard on this point. Totally missing the mark.
Offering a path with a different outcome, involves player agency and added thought about your actions. Sounds interesting.
You have to choose the path, and choose to stay on it, so not sure where the choice was removed.
Kyno, I really respect your voice in the forums, and really appreciate the work you do here, but you have to see that objectively speaking this is worse than previous conquests, right? Before, we would be able to see the disc options in two separate paths and choose which one to target. Now, if we want to have the opportunity to pick from two nodes, we have to follow a preset (and obtuse) path before seeing what the choices are. If we deviate from the path, we lose the choice. Without even going into whether or not it is fair or "ruins" conquest, you have to admit that it is objectively less player agency than before.
Yeah, I don't know why Kyno is digging in so hard on this point. Totally missing the mark.
I think it’s called cognitive dissonance in psychology
Did they really think we wouldn't notice? It's pretty hard not to.[/quote]
I'm pretty certain that the Developers know full well how some of their decision will go down with the vocal elements of the community. But it's not about doing things the players necessarily want or enjoy but maximising revenue. That's the only reason this game exists.
In the past, you could wait to choose your path until you could see what was in both disc nodes, then evaluate the difficulty of the paths against the quality of the discs.
Now you have to blindly commit to the hard path if you want to have two nodes to choose from, without any way of knowing whether tackling the increased difficulty will be worth it.
Now add in the fact that they presented it as "hard path will offer additional rewards" when it is really "hard path will offer the same rewards as always, but we are nerfing the rewards for the original/'normal' path".
These feats are child’s play (for whales and krakens) and I’m only at the mini boss in sector 2 lol.
Yeah there's plenty that's been poorly executed but I see the complaints about feat difficulty as being the least valid. A LOT of the worst feats were removed and the ones we have now are quite a bit easier and more flexible. For exampe, 14 wins with no Supports for sector 1 is FAR superior to having to do 14 wins with a single faction. The only tricky part feat-wise is going to be pacing out the long stamina grind for the various Boba and/or Han -related feats.
I've been enjoying Conquest up until now, probably because I'm on Normal difficulty and haven't had to deal with the pressures of trying to get max character shards. I got max box last time so I was planning on getting on the Premium track this time. However, with the changes to energy costs and feats, I don't see myself getting anywhere close to max box and thus, have no reason to get Premium. I suppose I'm not the kind of player CG is trying to entice money from with these changes, but they've killed the fun of this mode for me and it seems like an unhealthy direction to be doing that for more and more people with each Conquest.
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
Shifting and splitting the good and the bad staff and taking you away a choice = CG's definition of better ...
Offering a path with a different outcome, involves player agency and added thought about your actions. Sounds interesting.
You have to choose the path, and choose to stay on it, so not sure where the choice was removed.
You have to guess the path first, or are we now officially playing with datamined info instead of official information for CG?
Yes I am still harping on this since it has been a day into it, and radio silence on this from CG.
For some perspective, I'll point out that this would still be the worst conquest yet in terms of gameplay even if they gave away the $30 pass for free.
Conquest 10 is worse than before lol. “Hey we’re making changes. We’re gonna make it worse than any other conquest. Stay tuned”. I really hope Hunters will be good, so I can drop this game and move on
These feats are child’s play (for whales and krakens) and I’m only at the mini boss in sector 2 lol.
Yeah there's plenty that's been poorly executed but I see the complaints about feat difficulty as being the least valid. A LOT of the worst feats were removed and the ones we have now are quite a bit easier and more flexible. For exampe, 14 wins with no Supports for sector 1 is FAR superior to having to do 14 wins with a single faction. The only tricky part feat-wise is going to be pacing out the long stamina grind for the various Boba and/or Han -related feats.
Not really. You can throw boba, han, and fennic shand, under a GL and get both at once.
The 40 bh and smugglers feat is the worst. To complete that you have to do 80 battles (likely all on sector 1 on a couple of nodes that these teams can actually beat unless you way over invested in these teams).
How is 40 battles with a single faction better than 14?
Not really. You can throw boba, han, and fennic shand, under a GL and get both at once.
The 40 bh and smugglers feat is the worst. To complete that you have to do 80 battles (likely all on sector 1 on a couple of nodes that these teams can actually beat unless you way over invested in these teams).
I'm including the BH and Smugglers feats under the Boba/Han planning umbrella I mentioned previously, since for most players those two toons will be key members they lean on for those particular factions. So in total for a typical player (ie not a super BH-heavy roster) trying to be most efficient they'll be doing:
- 40 BH battles with Boba (half of which they'll also include Fennec for that other Global feat),
- 40 Smuggler battles with Han, and
- another 20 miscellaneous fights with both Boba and Han (which inherently prevents you from doing either BH or Smuggler feat) - sector 1 seems a good spot for this as you can sub Boba onto a CLS squad with Han and double up on the No-Supports and Evasion Down feats
That's 60 battles with each toon, which is a bit over 4 a day across 14 days. Just enough to do at or near 100% stamina, but like I said it will require good pacing.
How is 40 battles with a single faction better than 14?
Because it's 40 battles spread across 5 sectors and 110 nodes (actually many more if we're considering all the routes you can possibly take). Rather than 14 battles in a single sector with just 14 nodes. With nearly ten times the selection, there's a much much higher chance of finding favorable matchups to use those squads in, and get tons of progress towards the feats incidentally at the same time as you're progressing through the maps. Rather than having to find the one team in a sector you can possibly beat with the team and doing that single node over and over.
Not really. You can throw boba, han, and fennic shand, under a GL and get both at once.
The 40 bh and smugglers feat is the worst. To complete that you have to do 80 battles (likely all on sector 1 on a couple of nodes that these teams can actually beat unless you way over invested in these teams).
I'm including the BH and Smugglers feats under the Boba/Han planning umbrella I mentioned previously, since for most players those two toons will be key members they lean on for those particular factions. So in total for a typical player (ie not a super BH-heavy roster) trying to be most efficient they'll be doing:
- 40 BH battles with Boba (half of which they'll also include Fennec for that other Global feat),
- 40 Smuggler battles with Han, and
- another 20 miscellaneous fights with both Boba and Han (which inherently prevents you from doing either BH or Smuggler feat) - sector 1 seems a good spot for this as you can sub Boba onto a CLS squad with Han and double up on the No-Supports and Evasion Down feats
That's 60 battles with each toon, which is a bit over 4 a day across 14 days. Just enough to do at or near 100% stamina, but like I said it will require good pacing.
How is 40 battles with a single faction better than 14?
Because it's 40 battles spread across 5 sectors and 110 nodes (actually many more if we're considering all the routes you can possibly take). Rather than 14 battles in a single sector with just 14 nodes. With nearly ten times the selection, there's a much much higher chance of finding favorable matchups to use those squads in, and get tons of progress towards the feats incidentally at the same time as you're progressing through the maps. Rather than having to find the one team in a sector you can possibly beat with the team and doing that single node over and over.
I think the 20 battles with boba, han, fennic under a GL is the better path. You can do it with low stamina and get it out of the way in a couple of days. After that you can do the faction feats without having to worry about it.
These feats are child’s play (for whales and krakens) and I’m only at the mini boss in sector 2 lol.
Yeah there's plenty that's been poorly executed but I see the complaints about feat difficulty as being the least valid. A LOT of the worst feats were removed and the ones we have now are quite a bit easier and more flexible. For exampe, 14 wins with no Supports for sector 1 is FAR superior to having to do 14 wins with a single faction. The only tricky part feat-wise is going to be pacing out the long stamina grind for the various Boba and/or Han -related feats.
Not really. You can throw boba, han, and fennic shand, under a GL and get both at once.
The 40 bh and smugglers feat is the worst. To complete that you have to do 80 battles (likely all on sector 1 on a couple of nodes that these teams can actually beat unless you way over invested in these teams).
How is 40 battles with a single faction better than 14?
Absolutely this. Cg and others can provide a list that minimum number of battles remained similar or less than conquest 7-9 (personally haven’t seen this. I thought I saw minimum going up), but it ignores the reality that bhs/smugglers and Han+boba replaced feats we didn’t think about (50/50 ds/ls), provided more choice, and easily were done in sector five.
This one change negates anything they think they did to address our feedback. It likely will make max crate more expensive for anyone who bothers. It definitely will make conquest less enjoyable. The feats are easy to complete no doubt from a win/loss perspective. I’m not saying max crate is out of reach. It’s just not fun, too time consuming, and continues to limit choices and ability to strategize your way through the sectors.
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
Shifting and splitting the good and the bad staff and taking you away a choice = CG's definition of better ...
Offering a path with a different outcome, involves player agency and added thought about your actions. Sounds interesting.
You have to choose the path, and choose to stay on it, so not sure where the choice was removed.
Hi Shill,
The choice that was removed is that we have to pick these paths before the nodes are visible, meaning we lock in to an unknown result. In the past we could get to the two unknown results a few nodes out and then choose which of the two broken options worked best for us.
Hi player,
The choice was not removed, you still have it, and can weigh the path laid out before you.
That’s a false equivalency or moving goalposts. We don’t have the information we need to accurately and adequately weigh the choice. The overall experience was better without the choice.
I appreciate your support in acknowledging that there is still a choice. Thank you.
So he highlighted only 3 problems out of everything posted here. Everything else working as intended? 20 energy cost and hard path for easy/normal?
There is more, and they are aware. That was all he got in time for the post.
From my understanding the 20 energy for all is correct, as is the hard path for all.
So what you are saying is CG doesn't understand the hard path in this game mode and we have to rely on datamined information and player trial and error. Pathetic.
There was a miscommunication in the announcement regarding the map layout for all tiers.
Was there also a miscommunication regarding the supposed better rewards for this “difficult” path?
There is better stuff, and in a way yes there was, but I cannot go into details on that at the moment.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
I have seen some players posting images that would suggest the discs are better, but I have no direct confirmation of this.
Replies
Kyno, I really respect your voice in the forums, and really appreciate the work you do here, but you have to see that objectively speaking this is worse than previous conquests, right? Before, we would be able to see the disc options in two separate paths and choose which one to target. Now, if we want to have the opportunity to pick from two nodes, we have to follow a preset (and obtuse) path before seeing what the choices are. If we deviate from the path, we lose the choice. Without even going into whether or not it is fair or "ruins" conquest, you have to admit that it is objectively less player agency than before.
What better stuff? The completion of the nodes offers the same exact amount of conquest currency. The data disks and scavenger on those paths offer no guarantee of better data disks or consumables. Those nodes are still left up to RNG on what’s inside. So what exactly is the better rewards along the difficult path?
I’m getting the feeling that they might have actually coded the extra disk node to offer, or have the chance of offering, slightly better options, specifically so they could say the path offered better stuff. So far each bonus disk node I’ve seen has had a blue disk in sector 1, which isn’t unheard of but seems “better”.
Sure would be nice to know that for sure though and not have to just guess at it. And it also begs the question that if they did go in to code that then why the heck couldn’t they fix the duplicate disks thing…
I’m pretty sure they’ve always been able to tweak Disk Nodes’ “better loot”. The nodes after each Sector Boss are almost always good (or at least offer better Disks than the others in their sector).
That's RNG and I can tell you that for others, like myself, that is NOT the case.
NO ENTRENCHED
NO PURPLE DISKS
1 BLUE (Caustic Emissions, whoopie)
All others have no synergy and some new ones DON'T STACK INTENTIONALLY
Or at the very least be honest about it.
If CG likes the grindy feats they should just say so.
If they want to require a "special path" to get the exact same data disc choices as we had before. They should sell it as that. There are no increased rewards for the hard path.
Why keep trying to spin so much? That just makes players angrier when the truth comes out.
Did they really think we wouldn't notice? It's pretty hard not to.
Yeah, I don't know why Kyno is digging in so hard on this point. Totally missing the mark.
I think it’s called cognitive dissonance in psychology
Did they really think we wouldn't notice? It's pretty hard not to.[/quote]
I'm pretty certain that the Developers know full well how some of their decision will go down with the vocal elements of the community. But it's not about doing things the players necessarily want or enjoy but maximising revenue. That's the only reason this game exists.
Now you have to blindly commit to the hard path if you want to have two nodes to choose from, without any way of knowing whether tackling the increased difficulty will be worth it.
Now add in the fact that they presented it as "hard path will offer additional rewards" when it is really "hard path will offer the same rewards as always, but we are nerfing the rewards for the original/'normal' path".
Edit: Typo
Yeah there's plenty that's been poorly executed but I see the complaints about feat difficulty as being the least valid. A LOT of the worst feats were removed and the ones we have now are quite a bit easier and more flexible. For exampe, 14 wins with no Supports for sector 1 is FAR superior to having to do 14 wins with a single faction. The only tricky part feat-wise is going to be pacing out the long stamina grind for the various Boba and/or Han -related feats.
Anything on why the hard path was sold as extra rewards when it's now required just to get the choices we had before?
I think the community deserves an explanation on why it was sold the way it was.
Well I have bad news to you in sector 2
Let's see if I can get that far without any discs first 🤞😉.
You have to guess the path first, or are we now officially playing with datamined info instead of official information for CG?
Yes I am still harping on this since it has been a day into it, and radio silence on this from CG.
Yes I am still harping on this since it has been a day into it, and radio silence on this from CG.[/quote]
Radio silence frequently goes on for much longer than a day.
Not really. You can throw boba, han, and fennic shand, under a GL and get both at once.
The 40 bh and smugglers feat is the worst. To complete that you have to do 80 battles (likely all on sector 1 on a couple of nodes that these teams can actually beat unless you way over invested in these teams).
How is 40 battles with a single faction better than 14?
- 40 BH battles with Boba (half of which they'll also include Fennec for that other Global feat),
- 40 Smuggler battles with Han, and
- another 20 miscellaneous fights with both Boba and Han (which inherently prevents you from doing either BH or Smuggler feat) - sector 1 seems a good spot for this as you can sub Boba onto a CLS squad with Han and double up on the No-Supports and Evasion Down feats
That's 60 battles with each toon, which is a bit over 4 a day across 14 days. Just enough to do at or near 100% stamina, but like I said it will require good pacing.
Because it's 40 battles spread across 5 sectors and 110 nodes (actually many more if we're considering all the routes you can possibly take). Rather than 14 battles in a single sector with just 14 nodes. With nearly ten times the selection, there's a much much higher chance of finding favorable matchups to use those squads in, and get tons of progress towards the feats incidentally at the same time as you're progressing through the maps. Rather than having to find the one team in a sector you can possibly beat with the team and doing that single node over and over.
I think the 20 battles with boba, han, fennic under a GL is the better path. You can do it with low stamina and get it out of the way in a couple of days. After that you can do the faction feats without having to worry about it.
Absolutely this. Cg and others can provide a list that minimum number of battles remained similar or less than conquest 7-9 (personally haven’t seen this. I thought I saw minimum going up), but it ignores the reality that bhs/smugglers and Han+boba replaced feats we didn’t think about (50/50 ds/ls), provided more choice, and easily were done in sector five.
This one change negates anything they think they did to address our feedback. It likely will make max crate more expensive for anyone who bothers. It definitely will make conquest less enjoyable. The feats are easy to complete no doubt from a win/loss perspective. I’m not saying max crate is out of reach. It’s just not fun, too time consuming, and continues to limit choices and ability to strategize your way through the sectors.
I appreciate your support in acknowledging that there is still a choice. Thank you.
I have seen some players posting images that would suggest the discs are better, but I have no direct confirmation of this.