So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
So just kill whatever and don't worry about the enemy abilities?
Ok.
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
There are strategies to the battles.
$$$ only speeds things up, it doesnt help you win. A guild with all G13 CUP doesnt mean you will win or beat TB. This game is about strategy, part of that is who you develop and how you set them up.
So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
So just kill whatever and don't worry about the enemy abilities?
Ok.
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
Ok so we are going back to 2016 when this game didnt have paragraphs for abilities. Got it.
Also from what i could see the GET 1 token imcome isn't superior to the Hoth Tbs by a noticeable margin. I don't think it's cool to not let us do Hoth TB and reduce our GET 1 token income. Maybe I'm mistaken but it sure looks like I'll be earning less GET 1 tokens this time around than I'd get from the Hoth TB (and those tokens remain a useful source for farming g12 gear)
Based on their projections in the previews, you are most likely going to receive about half of the GET1 tokens from GEO as you would at Hoth. But the tradeoff is getting GET2, since that is what you need to purchase the new capital ship, the G12 finisher salvage, and Kyrotech salvage. They are not looking to increase your GET income, but transition it to more useful endgame currency.
I'm more concerned about reducing my GET 1 income, like GET 2 should be in addition to, not split the difference. There will always be new toons and reworks of older toons that weren't worth gearing prior so we'll always need to be able to get the lower gear tier salavage in the stores. For example, guild tokens from raids remains useful because we need it to take toons to gear 12.
I can't get much benefit from GET 2 tokens farming g12 finishers if my GET 1 token reduction means i can't as efficiently get toons to g12. That's my concern, the new TB is creating a gear bottleneck where there wasn't one and for no real reason. With all the bottlenecks that already exist for all the lower gear tiers it's not like we'd be turning every toon to g13 over night.
The currency aproach with geo tb has all the logic of " in hsith you'll earn half the guild tokens you do from hpit because it's a tradeoff for getting g12 salavage." They didn't make it a tradeoff of getting less currency to farm older gear in exhange for g12 salvage because that wouldn't have made sense.
Y'all are the trolls not me, I literally said I was hoping for more creative ways to make it hard. I didn't say it should be easy. I just wanted it to be mechanically challenging not straight up 200% tenacity, tons of protection recovery with huge health pools and defense.
So before you start attacking me, understand what I'm saying
Define mechanically challenging.
Your complain sounds really superficial. If you want auto battles, go to a guild that does Hoth
@Hortus
Almost everything you listed were innovative ideas incorporated into the Tank Raid, lol... perhaps I missed the point you were trying to make, but those are prime examples of creative ideas being incorporated into new content (at the time). We still have to see what previous game mechanics they will incorporate in the future phases.
The point is that while there are huge amount of creative ways to make battles more complex and difficult the Geo TB design is still stats bumping and nothing else. And yes, most of those ideas are already implemented somewhere in game, I specifically mentioned this. That makes question "why Geo battles is basically Hoth with recolored decorations and bumped stats" even more actual. Of course, we haven't seen much yet but first look is a little disappointing.
So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
So just kill whatever and don't worry about the enemy abilities?
Ok.
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
You're oversimplifying to prove a point. It's not that i disagree entirely, but there's more to it than you try to make it seem.
Also, what you consider to be "common sense" is probably not common enough to be considered common.
So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
So just kill whatever and don't worry about the enemy abilities?
Ok.
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
You're oversimplifying to prove a point. It's not that i disagree entirely, but there's more to it than you try to make it seem.
Also, what you consider to be "common sense" is probably not common enough to be considered common.
Honestly not much more. If the rest of this TB is similar to the first wave, then it is no different than the Hoths from a "strategy" standpoint. In other words, it's is 95% brute force and 5% thinking. TB's aren't like raids (which have allowed for decent, actual strategies to develop) or the excellent Malak event; they are more like LS/DS nodes.
As for whether its common sense or not, if you (not you specifically) have played the game since launch then the basics should be "common sense" by now. If they aren't? Then maybe...just maybe... you are a stable genius!
So I am hoping one day you will find something you like in this game so you can have fun, like the rest of us. From the way you post, you seem to be truly exercising the definition of insanity.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
As for no strategy, dont worry someone else will figure it out for you and you can follow them.
The strategy being spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and upgrade to g13?
I mean the OP post was pointless, but let's not pretend there is strategy involved in this TB or any past TB.
So just kill whatever and don't worry about the enemy abilities?
Ok.
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
You're oversimplifying to prove a point. It's not that i disagree entirely, but there's more to it than you try to make it seem.
Also, what you consider to be "common sense" is probably not common enough to be considered common.
Honestly not much more. If the rest of this TB is similar to the first wave, then it is no different than the Hoths from a "strategy" standpoint. In other words, it's is 95% brute force and 5% thinking. TB's aren't like raids (which have allowed for decent, actual strategies to develop) or the excellent Malak event; they are more like LS/DS nodes.
As for whether its common sense or not, if you (not you specifically) have played the game since launch then the basics should be "common sense" by now. If they aren't? Then maybe...just maybe... you are a stable genius!
Once any strategy is developed, you just do it repetetively. It's not like vast majority of the community even tries anything for themselves, they try it within the conformity of others provide them with tried&proven. That's where any intricacy will end up at. Let's be honest about the general cyclic psychology around this thing; we all want it to be weird and unautoable at first where all the decisions matter, we all want it to autoable later.
It's called end game content for a reason. It was also explained to be more difficult than anything we had seen before.
For sure... but in fact when a game add new end game, they make the old game content more easy. That help new player to join the old player...CG add new content and never make easy the old content.
One of the thing who made the game more easy in the near past was the 8 attempts... and it was deleted...
They made g12 more accessible and now they made g13 openly accessible, which they have stated will make old content easier.... so how are they not making old content easier?
Come on man, accessible maybe, but how many time we have to farm for only one piece???
And there are not only gear!
From now, how many time will make a new player to join the new end game content? (a player who don't make thousand dollar in the game of course). 6month? 1year? 2years? I think it's something like 2 years... This is not make old content easier, more accessible or faster...
Making the game easier, more accessible or faster, it's not only make g12 and g13...
Think about it : WOW don't have the success he have if a new player make 2 years to join the end game...
PS : looks the g12 g13 accessibility (just a sample)
The dumb high tenacity - and the overall difficulty in general - is a good thing.
Hear me out here, before you start grabbing your torches and pitchforks.
First off, yes, it's high, but it's not so high that you can't inflict debuffs at all, like with that one mod battle node. There's just more uncertainty as to whether they will land than you're used to.
Why's this a good thing? It gives you something to focus on besides PVP.
Think about it: every time a new release comes out, it's immediately declared to be either "bad" or "overpowered." Why? Because if it can't take #1 in arena, it's bad, and if it can, it's overpowered.I have touched on this subject before. (that's a link, I used bold because this goofy forum doesn't let you make things look like a hyperlink for some reason.)
Now here comes Geo TB. It's got a lot of good stuff that everyone wants - new capital ship, new gear finishers, new Separatist character that is 100% going to create teams that get nerfed because they're too savage.
Now you can focus on building up some teams that can overcome things like crazy tenacity, and not feel like the effort is "wasted" because it isn't optimal for squad arena or GAC. Leadership abilities like Palpatine, Talzin and Traya (and probably Carth and Jyn when the LS version arrives) become much more valuable because they provide a critical potency boost that helps you land debuffs when they would otherwise mostly bounce. You can get use out of "bad" mods that only hit once on speed but roll a good potency secondary.
You get my point. It lets you build teams that can overcome the huge challenge of the new content and enjoy PVE for the first time in forever, instead of just laser focusing on PVP and treating TB like just a slog that you're forced to hit auto on for free loot.
Until everyone starts getting G13 squads and steamrolling it, anyway. Then I'm sure it'll be right back to the usual.
People hated the tenacity mechanic in STR (I'm sure plenty of people still do) but the devs have to do *something* so we can't just wreck new content immediately.
I really don’t understand why more people haven’t “liked” or agreed with the his post. This would be great to incorporate. Well done sir.
Because the poster does not understand he is facing characters that are level 89-93 and he’s only level 85. Pretty sure that 93 becomes a 95 elite by the final nodes.
Just by the level difference, the GR toons have more of everything just not tenacity due to being 4 - 10 levels higher than players. Probably equipped then all with 6E or better mods as well and GS12 - GS13.
As the year moves on, pretty sure GS12 finishers will make this easier as well as remakes of older toons, and possibly level 90 for players.
They made g12 more accessible and now they made g13 openly accessible, which they have stated will make old content easier.... so how are they not making old content easier?
They have made some things more accessible. I noticed that they added more gear 12 to being farmable, but this does not necessarily help much. If they want to make it more accessible they would increase the drop rates or increase our energy intake. Just sharing a valuable currency for more things does not really address that. I'll see over time how things go and if our currency intake increases for guild event tokens and such with the new TB, and GA mode.
Based on their projections in the previews, you are most likely going to receive about half of the GET1 tokens from GEO as you would at Hoth. But the tradeoff is getting GET2, since that is what you need to purchase the new capital ship, the G12 finisher salvage, and Kyrotech salvage. They are not looking to increase your GET income, but transition it to more useful endgame currency.
So if you actually look at what they did, they made g12 less accessible. If they halve the income you need for purchasing g11/g12 pieces in order to make currency available to purchase g13, they're hurting every single player who doesn't have the bulk of their toons to g12 already.
Criticize EA/CG or don't criticize them, but let's not misrepresent what they did here.
Also, the whole defense of EA/CG which relies on their statements that this is supposed to be end-game challenging content requiring g13 ignores the fact that they specifically said that somewhere around 140 million to 160 million guild GP would result in guilds breaking even on switching over to Geo TB. The difficulty can be whatever EA/CG wants it to be, but if we're not getting equivalent rewards at 160M+ gp, then if they don't want to make it easier to get stars (and I don't think they should, but that technically is one option) then they need to boost the rewards substantially. Otherwise, they aren't making g12 more accessible.
In particular, I should note that special mission rewards include zero GET1 tokens. Replacing access to GET1 in Geo TB means replacing total access to GET1, not merely the GET1 in final rewards for stars earned.
In short, EA/CG was not telling the truth when it said that guilds of 160M gp should be moving over to GeoTB and could expect equivalent rewards.
EA/CG's defenders are not fairly or accurately stating the truth when they assert that g12 is being made "more available" when access to GET1 is falling dramatically, though I think this is probably simply because they haven't thought it through rather than from any desire to misrepresent what's going on.
As I stated in my earlier comment, I welcome the difficulty. My primary criticism is that we need more information on the challenges presented in order to make interesting educated guesses about what might work against these new opponents. Not everyone is into theory crafting, but I like games that engage my mind, not just test how fast I can press a button (which is why I play things like SWGOH rather than most FPS games).
However, as Kyno has expanded the discussion around difficulty into discussions of rewards, I think it's fair to say that not only does it seem unlikely my 200M gp guild will reach the 20-24 stars estimated by EA/CG, but with special missions not providing GET1, there simply isn't any way that Geo TB will make good on the promises of breaking even on past rewards while gaining something new. It's clear that this is a trade.
If EA/CG wanted to create such a trade off that truly expanded access to g12 while introducing g13, the appropriate thing to do would have been to add more options purchasable by GET1, never introduce GET2, and force individuals balance the costs between getting a very few toons to g13 or getting two or three times as many to g12.
I'd rather not just earn stars much easier to boost the GET1 production. I think they need to add GET1 to special mission rewards and I'll wait to make a final judgement, but it may also be the case that they need to up the per-star final reward of GET1.
Anything else restricts access to g12 rather than expands it.
Also, the whole defense of EA/CG which relies on their statements that this is supposed to be end-game challenging content requiring g13 ignores the fact that they specifically said that somewhere around 140 million to 160 million guild GP would result in guilds breaking even on switching over to Geo TB. The difficulty can be whatever EA/CG wants it to be, but if we're not getting equivalent rewards at 160M+ gp, then if they don't want to make it easier to get stars (and I don't think they should, but that technically is one option) then they need to boost the rewards substantially. Otherwise, they aren't making g12 more accessible.
In particular, I should note that special mission rewards include zero GET1 tokens. Replacing access to GET1 in Geo TB means replacing total access to GET1, not merely the GET1 in final rewards for stars earned.
In short, EA/CG was not telling the truth when it said that guilds of 160M gp should be moving over to GeoTB and could expect equivalent rewards.
You seem to think that "equivalent" means "equal." It doesn't. CG has a view of the value of GET2, and believes that the total GET2+GET1 for 140-160m gp guilds, plus the gear rewards will have an equivalent value to Hoth rewards.
You seem to think that "equivalent" means "equal."
The problem isn't that I think that.
The problem is that others are arguing this constitutes an improvement on access to g12 gear - which I agree we need if you're going to make g13 the new top end.
you can't argue that g12 access is improving if they're cutting down on GET1 by half in order to allow you to farm the new Cap ship and then - someday - g13.
Will we be able to get as many g13 pieces with the 1/2 of GET1 that we lose to be converted in GET2? No?
Then whatever the value EA/CG places on GET2, the rewards aren't equivalent. We were specifically told we wouldn't lose out by migrating to Geo TB.
The truth is that we will lose out. We may be required to do so to farm the new Cap ship, but is losing 1/2 your g12 production from GET1 in order to get a 5* cap ship 6 months from now while getting no new G13 access at all for those 6 months "equivalent"? Maybe, maybe not, but there is literally no way that anyone can honestly argue that g12 access is being expanded.
If it is in fact the goal that g12 access is expanded (and EA/CG has said this), and if that's the basis on which people are defending EA/CG (and yes, Kyno and others have argued that in this thread, as evidenced by the quotes), then halving the GET1 is a problem, and it won't be "equivalent" in any real way in the game. G12 access will be reduced - not equivalent, not expanded.
Again, we still need to see how final rewards play out, I'm not making a final judgement until I see exactly what we get at the end of TB and am able to compare it to 47 or 48-star Hoth DS TB (we're a 200M GP guild and we'd been regularly doing 47 for a long time, and just hit 48), but even if you believe that it's okay to replace GET1 with GET2, the currency that needs to be replaced includes the special mission currency, not merely the star-count reward currency.
There is no way we're getting equivalent GET2 on special missions to replace GET1 - again, that's assuming you accept that premise, which while it has some merit violates the stated intention of EA/CG and their defenders in this thread that g12 access is being increased. We're a 200M gp guild and I got a grand total of, wait, let me check, zero GET2 from the p1 special mission.
If they intended to set the difficulty such that 160M+ guilds get the "equivalent" to the GET1 income, then the conversion value they're setting on GET1 is, let me do the math, nothin, and then nothin, carry the nothin...
Oh, yeah - it's zero.
Obviously this isn't always going to be the case. People will eventually get all g13 separatist teams and rock the special missions, but there's literally no way that any 160M gp guild is getting "equivalent" rewards from special missions. It just isn't happening. I'm happy to compare final results at the end as a double check, but the fact that you think zero GET2 is equivalent to hundreds of GET1 shows that you've really not thought this one through.
For GET2, you can purchase not just finishers, but g12+ pieces. So that access has, unequivocally, been expanded. You may choose not to purchase it because you want Negotiator, but access to the pieces applied to someone at g12 has been expanded. Additionally, while you get less GET1, you still get a good amount of it. A guild that was at 48 stars in DSTB may get, let's say 18 stars here. That's 4,900 GET1, compared to 7,100 from DSTB. In exchange for that 2,200 GET1, you gain 4,850 GET2. Now yes, there's a loss from special missions, but again, it's trading GET1 for GET2. Also note that you were getting 6,000 GET1 from LS Hoth, so the tradeoff is even less there.
The other thing you currently have no idea about is how much gear drops in the prize boxes. There's no way to know, because we haven't gotten them yet.
For GET2, you can purchase not just finishers, but g12+ pieces. So that access has, unequivocally, been expanded. You may choose not to purchase it because you want Negotiator, but access to the pieces applied to someone at g12 has been expanded.
This only holds true if Negotiator is not required for LS Geo TB. If it is required, that's 4-months+ with nothing to show for your GET2 tokens, and another 2-months+ with only a 5* cap ship to show for it, and a final 2 to 3 months (at recent TB cadence) with only a 6* cap ship that can't yet complete all its required missions. If the number of stars achieved increases rapidly over the next month or two with improved separatist toons, you might have a 160M gp guild now and start earning GET2 you're free to spend on anything you like in a mere 6 months. But at this TB cadence, 10 months is well within the realm of possibility.
So your argument works ... if you think that the Negotiator is entirely optional and will never be required for future missions. This works for Wampa and Hoda. How much actual money would you bet it holds true for Negotiator when LS Geo TB drops?
That's what I thought.
You also said:
The other thing you currently have no idea about is how much gear drops in the prize boxes. There's no way to know, because we haven't gotten them yet.
Which is why I said:
I'd rather not just earn stars much easier to boost the GET1 production. I think they need to add GET1 to special mission rewards and I'll wait to make a final judgement, but it may also be the case that they need to up the per-star final reward of GET1.
oh, and also:
Again, we still need to see how final rewards play out, I'm not making a final judgement until I see exactly what we get at the end of TB and am able to compare it
The context for this is that EA/CG asserted before this TB started that choosing Geo TB over Hoth would earn a guild better rewards if the guild had 160M+ gp, and would approximately break even (depending on a number of factors) for guilds of 140-160M gp. I'm currently doubtful that's actually true, but I am, in fact, waiting for more evidence to come in to make any final decision. (And part of my reason for pessimism is that EA/CG explicitly compared final-star rewards to final-star rewards, not total rewards including special missions ... and I seriously doubt that there are very many 150M gp guilds better equipped to tackle the SMs than my 200M gp guild.)
If you want to criticize people who are leaping to conclusions without good evidence, why not criticize the same people I'm criticizing for asserting that EA/CG is fulfilling its promises and expanding G12 access. They haven't waited for the final gear drops to check, and they didn't say that they were waiting for them. It seems like your problem should be much more with them than with someone like me who is happy to use both real-world evidence currently available (like the 0 GET2 earned by my guild in p1, which I doubt very much ) as well as to make explicit my assumptions (like my admission that my argument on more limited g12 access only holds true if Negotiator is never a required ship, and/or if final gear drops don't make up for lost GET1).
Sure my argument could be wrong. But if it is, we would know exactly why, and we both know that I've previously said I haven't yet made a final judgement. People are free to examine my assumptions as well as to do what I'm going to do in 3 days by comparing new gear drops to the old gear drops.
Why not, and I know this must seem like crazy talk, but why not admit that there's good but unconfirmed reason to believe that g12 access is being held steady or even reduced and that a couple of key pieces of information, required missions for Negotiator and final gear drops, will make all the difference in that assessment?
You're the one who has already made up your mind that future evidence doesn't matter. I quote:
So [g12] access has, unequivocally, been expanded.
If you wanted to say that my position is pessimistic and you argue for more optimism, that's fine. But that's not what you did. You've given your final verdict. I've given reasons for serious concern and specified which facts we can only learn in the future that will allow us to verify whether or not rewards actually break even for a 140-160 M gp guild today - which was EA/CG's prediction.
Dark side characters thrive off of debuffs. To make it difficult for them, make them undebuffable
Light side characters thrive off of buffs. To make it difficult for them, make them cleanse buffs.
Its basically like taking away the legs of a soccer player.
Yes, it makes it more difficult, but legless soccer is no fun.
I don't complain about the tenacity per se (if you look at my original post, I merely wished that we had more information in the given kits so that we could anticipate such things and engage our brains in our gameplay, trying to make the best decisions possible). I also don't think that this is "lazier" game design than, say, giving every enemy 100% TM and huge offense bonuses so you never get a turn.
But whether it's fun game design is a different question. I do think that game design that is more fun would not eliminate what you do well, but allow your enemies to survive and fight back even when you're doing what you do best.
Game design that operates on the basis of simply denying you the ability to use what's super-cool about a squad may have the effect of upping the difficulty. However, we collect these things because we like the super-cool things that they do and want to use those abilities. If you want to create a challenge for the Ewoks, you can ban TM gain and throw dispels and buff immunity with every attack. Then they have to slowly plink away at the enemy with no buffs to increase their damage over the absolute minimum (the little fur balls hardly hit for anything, after all). It could become a tense race to see if your slow plinking and EE's healing eventually allow you to finish off the enemy before they finish off you.
But are Ewoks with no TM gain and no buffs any fun?
Of course not.
It's not even the debuffs per se, but effects that trigger when debuffs expire, like the extra damage on Vader's special, never happen if the debuffs don't land to begin with. In order for dark side toons to be cool and use their cool abilities, they have to land their debuffs.
The problem, if there is one, with super-high tenacity isn't that it makes it hard to win. The problem with high tenacity is that it makes the battles no fun.
I suppose if I were being paid $16.50 an hour to do play testing and debugging I wouldn't care. I suppose inside EA when designing a new TB the 40-hour grind can make you forget about such things. But I don't want to watch Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe try to play soccer after you surgically remove their legs. Even if you take the legs off the other team so that the USA team still has a chance to win, legless soccer would be not just tragic, it would also be boring as heck.
If low-tenacity clones needed to have double the obscene health that they have now in order to be a challenge to strong DS teams, then doubling the health is probably the design choice I would prefer just because even if my rate of success is the same or a bit lower, I have more fun playing my toons when they get to do the cool things that I collected and geared them to do.
EA/CG's frequent decisions to counter a toon by simply not letting it do what makes it cool does create difficulty, but it definitely reduces the fun.
Unnecessary intellectual exercise:
Think about the hypothetical Ewok challenge above. While you could create an event where TM gained is banned through a mechanism similar to HK's unique (but not requiring debuffs to be present) and where you have 7 B2s spamming AoE dispel and buff immunity, you would make all the ewoks into nothing more than 4 x Clone Wars Chewbacca + one Jolee Bindo.
Now think about a challenge for Ewoks where you have a couple, maybe even three frequent taunters. Then you give one of the enemy a unique that makes it so that when any ally gains taunt, the lowest-health ally gains stealth (which is suppressed by the Taunt if the Taunter is the lowest-health ally, of course). Give another one of the enemy (or just make it part of the rules of that particular event) a power that makes it so that whenever any of their enemies (that is, when ever your ewoks) deals damage with an assist, each ally under X% health (it could even be under 100% health if necessary) heals 5% health. Alternatively, it could heal each other ally (so a toon couldn't heal from the attacks that hit itself), but the amount of healing would be boosted up to maybe 10% health.
Now your ewoks get to do all their cool ewok stuff (TM jumping, buffing, assisting), but it's super hard to actually finish anyone off unless all the Taunters are dead. You can assist like crazy when taking down someone's protection, but you have to lay off the assists when trying to finish off a toon in the yellow/red or all your little attacks will heal them as much as they damage them and you won't get anywhere.
If you're trying to finish off one of the taunters, you would also have to be careful about how you use Paploo - you don't want to dispel the taunt of the taunter in the yellow/red you're trying to kill and then be forced to attack a different taunter while the first heals up. So when Paploo's turn comes, you make sure you switch targets or use one of Paploo's specials (even though it heals the enemy a bit from the assists), then switch back to finish off the one toon you have on the ropes.
Done correctly, something like this can create a difficult to solve puzzle that the AI can never beat on auto, but which challenges the Ewoks without ever taking away a single thing that they do well.
That's the best kind of game design. That's what we should ask of EA/CG: challenges that create difficulty without ever taking away any of the elements that actually make your toons cool and the game fun.
Replies
Pretty much. Let's not pretend there is rocket science involved here. I mean sure you try and block/prevent taunts, dispel taunts, kill revivers & debuff removers first, kill dps second, but that's like basics for any game like this. That's not strategy. It's common sense.
See above.
Ok so we are going back to 2016 when this game didnt have paragraphs for abilities. Got it.
I'm more concerned about reducing my GET 1 income, like GET 2 should be in addition to, not split the difference. There will always be new toons and reworks of older toons that weren't worth gearing prior so we'll always need to be able to get the lower gear tier salavage in the stores. For example, guild tokens from raids remains useful because we need it to take toons to gear 12.
I can't get much benefit from GET 2 tokens farming g12 finishers if my GET 1 token reduction means i can't as efficiently get toons to g12. That's my concern, the new TB is creating a gear bottleneck where there wasn't one and for no real reason. With all the bottlenecks that already exist for all the lower gear tiers it's not like we'd be turning every toon to g13 over night.
The currency aproach with geo tb has all the logic of " in hsith you'll earn half the guild tokens you do from hpit because it's a tradeoff for getting g12 salavage." They didn't make it a tradeoff of getting less currency to farm older gear in exhange for g12 salvage because that wouldn't have made sense.
Define mechanically challenging.
Your complain sounds really superficial. If you want auto battles, go to a guild that does Hoth
The point is that while there are huge amount of creative ways to make battles more complex and difficult the Geo TB design is still stats bumping and nothing else. And yes, most of those ideas are already implemented somewhere in game, I specifically mentioned this. That makes question "why Geo battles is basically Hoth with recolored decorations and bumped stats" even more actual. Of course, we haven't seen much yet but first look is a little disappointing.
You're oversimplifying to prove a point. It's not that i disagree entirely, but there's more to it than you try to make it seem.
Also, what you consider to be "common sense" is probably not common enough to be considered common.
Honestly not much more. If the rest of this TB is similar to the first wave, then it is no different than the Hoths from a "strategy" standpoint. In other words, it's is 95% brute force and 5% thinking. TB's aren't like raids (which have allowed for decent, actual strategies to develop) or the excellent Malak event; they are more like LS/DS nodes.
As for whether its common sense or not, if you (not you specifically) have played the game since launch then the basics should be "common sense" by now. If they aren't? Then maybe...just maybe... you are a stable genius!
Once any strategy is developed, you just do it repetetively. It's not like vast majority of the community even tries anything for themselves, they try it within the conformity of others provide them with tried&proven. That's where any intricacy will end up at. Let's be honest about the general cyclic psychology around this thing; we all want it to be weird and unautoable at first where all the decisions matter, we all want it to autoable later.
Come on man, accessible maybe, but how many time we have to farm for only one piece???
And there are not only gear!
From now, how many time will make a new player to join the new end game content? (a player who don't make thousand dollar in the game of course). 6month? 1year? 2years? I think it's something like 2 years... This is not make old content easier, more accessible or faster...
Making the game easier, more accessible or faster, it's not only make g12 and g13...
Think about it : WOW don't have the success he have if a new player make 2 years to join the end game...
PS : looks the g12 g13 accessibility (just a sample)
Edited sentence structure... facepalm
Hear me out here, before you start grabbing your torches and pitchforks.
First off, yes, it's high, but it's not so high that you can't inflict debuffs at all, like with that one mod battle node. There's just more uncertainty as to whether they will land than you're used to.
Why's this a good thing? It gives you something to focus on besides PVP.
Think about it: every time a new release comes out, it's immediately declared to be either "bad" or "overpowered." Why? Because if it can't take #1 in arena, it's bad, and if it can, it's overpowered.I have touched on this subject before. (that's a link, I used bold because this goofy forum doesn't let you make things look like a hyperlink for some reason.)
Now here comes Geo TB. It's got a lot of good stuff that everyone wants - new capital ship, new gear finishers, new Separatist character that is 100% going to create teams that get nerfed because they're too savage.
Now you can focus on building up some teams that can overcome things like crazy tenacity, and not feel like the effort is "wasted" because it isn't optimal for squad arena or GAC. Leadership abilities like Palpatine, Talzin and Traya (and probably Carth and Jyn when the LS version arrives) become much more valuable because they provide a critical potency boost that helps you land debuffs when they would otherwise mostly bounce. You can get use out of "bad" mods that only hit once on speed but roll a good potency secondary.
You get my point. It lets you build teams that can overcome the huge challenge of the new content and enjoy PVE for the first time in forever, instead of just laser focusing on PVP and treating TB like just a slog that you're forced to hit auto on for free loot.
Until everyone starts getting G13 squads and steamrolling it, anyway. Then I'm sure it'll be right back to the usual.
Well, I discovered today that it allows him to heal a Bossk-led BH team. So there's that. You could also run somebody that inflicts Tenacity Down.
It's fine.
Because it’s BaldingHead.
Need I say more?
Because the poster does not understand he is facing characters that are level 89-93 and he’s only level 85. Pretty sure that 93 becomes a 95 elite by the final nodes.
Just by the level difference, the GR toons have more of everything just not tenacity due to being 4 - 10 levels higher than players. Probably equipped then all with 6E or better mods as well and GS12 - GS13.
As the year moves on, pretty sure GS12 finishers will make this easier as well as remakes of older toons, and possibly level 90 for players.
@Mzee replied:
@littleMAC77 added:
So if you actually look at what they did, they made g12 less accessible. If they halve the income you need for purchasing g11/g12 pieces in order to make currency available to purchase g13, they're hurting every single player who doesn't have the bulk of their toons to g12 already.
Criticize EA/CG or don't criticize them, but let's not misrepresent what they did here.
Also, the whole defense of EA/CG which relies on their statements that this is supposed to be end-game challenging content requiring g13 ignores the fact that they specifically said that somewhere around 140 million to 160 million guild GP would result in guilds breaking even on switching over to Geo TB. The difficulty can be whatever EA/CG wants it to be, but if we're not getting equivalent rewards at 160M+ gp, then if they don't want to make it easier to get stars (and I don't think they should, but that technically is one option) then they need to boost the rewards substantially. Otherwise, they aren't making g12 more accessible.
In particular, I should note that special mission rewards include zero GET1 tokens. Replacing access to GET1 in Geo TB means replacing total access to GET1, not merely the GET1 in final rewards for stars earned.
In short, EA/CG was not telling the truth when it said that guilds of 160M gp should be moving over to GeoTB and could expect equivalent rewards.
EA/CG's defenders are not fairly or accurately stating the truth when they assert that g12 is being made "more available" when access to GET1 is falling dramatically, though I think this is probably simply because they haven't thought it through rather than from any desire to misrepresent what's going on.
As I stated in my earlier comment, I welcome the difficulty. My primary criticism is that we need more information on the challenges presented in order to make interesting educated guesses about what might work against these new opponents. Not everyone is into theory crafting, but I like games that engage my mind, not just test how fast I can press a button (which is why I play things like SWGOH rather than most FPS games).
However, as Kyno has expanded the discussion around difficulty into discussions of rewards, I think it's fair to say that not only does it seem unlikely my 200M gp guild will reach the 20-24 stars estimated by EA/CG, but with special missions not providing GET1, there simply isn't any way that Geo TB will make good on the promises of breaking even on past rewards while gaining something new. It's clear that this is a trade.
If EA/CG wanted to create such a trade off that truly expanded access to g12 while introducing g13, the appropriate thing to do would have been to add more options purchasable by GET1, never introduce GET2, and force individuals balance the costs between getting a very few toons to g13 or getting two or three times as many to g12.
I'd rather not just earn stars much easier to boost the GET1 production. I think they need to add GET1 to special mission rewards and I'll wait to make a final judgement, but it may also be the case that they need to up the per-star final reward of GET1.
Anything else restricts access to g12 rather than expands it.
You seem to think that "equivalent" means "equal." It doesn't. CG has a view of the value of GET2, and believes that the total GET2+GET1 for 140-160m gp guilds, plus the gear rewards will have an equivalent value to Hoth rewards.
The problem isn't that I think that.
The problem is that others are arguing this constitutes an improvement on access to g12 gear - which I agree we need if you're going to make g13 the new top end.
you can't argue that g12 access is improving if they're cutting down on GET1 by half in order to allow you to farm the new Cap ship and then - someday - g13.
Will we be able to get as many g13 pieces with the 1/2 of GET1 that we lose to be converted in GET2? No?
Then whatever the value EA/CG places on GET2, the rewards aren't equivalent. We were specifically told we wouldn't lose out by migrating to Geo TB.
The truth is that we will lose out. We may be required to do so to farm the new Cap ship, but is losing 1/2 your g12 production from GET1 in order to get a 5* cap ship 6 months from now while getting no new G13 access at all for those 6 months "equivalent"? Maybe, maybe not, but there is literally no way that anyone can honestly argue that g12 access is being expanded.
If it is in fact the goal that g12 access is expanded (and EA/CG has said this), and if that's the basis on which people are defending EA/CG (and yes, Kyno and others have argued that in this thread, as evidenced by the quotes), then halving the GET1 is a problem, and it won't be "equivalent" in any real way in the game. G12 access will be reduced - not equivalent, not expanded.
Again, we still need to see how final rewards play out, I'm not making a final judgement until I see exactly what we get at the end of TB and am able to compare it to 47 or 48-star Hoth DS TB (we're a 200M GP guild and we'd been regularly doing 47 for a long time, and just hit 48), but even if you believe that it's okay to replace GET1 with GET2, the currency that needs to be replaced includes the special mission currency, not merely the star-count reward currency.
There is no way we're getting equivalent GET2 on special missions to replace GET1 - again, that's assuming you accept that premise, which while it has some merit violates the stated intention of EA/CG and their defenders in this thread that g12 access is being increased. We're a 200M gp guild and I got a grand total of, wait, let me check, zero GET2 from the p1 special mission.
If they intended to set the difficulty such that 160M+ guilds get the "equivalent" to the GET1 income, then the conversion value they're setting on GET1 is, let me do the math, nothin, and then nothin, carry the nothin...
Oh, yeah - it's zero.
Obviously this isn't always going to be the case. People will eventually get all g13 separatist teams and rock the special missions, but there's literally no way that any 160M gp guild is getting "equivalent" rewards from special missions. It just isn't happening. I'm happy to compare final results at the end as a double check, but the fact that you think zero GET2 is equivalent to hundreds of GET1 shows that you've really not thought this one through.
The other thing you currently have no idea about is how much gear drops in the prize boxes. There's no way to know, because we haven't gotten them yet.
This only holds true if Negotiator is not required for LS Geo TB. If it is required, that's 4-months+ with nothing to show for your GET2 tokens, and another 2-months+ with only a 5* cap ship to show for it, and a final 2 to 3 months (at recent TB cadence) with only a 6* cap ship that can't yet complete all its required missions. If the number of stars achieved increases rapidly over the next month or two with improved separatist toons, you might have a 160M gp guild now and start earning GET2 you're free to spend on anything you like in a mere 6 months. But at this TB cadence, 10 months is well within the realm of possibility.
So your argument works ... if you think that the Negotiator is entirely optional and will never be required for future missions. This works for Wampa and Hoda. How much actual money would you bet it holds true for Negotiator when LS Geo TB drops?
That's what I thought.
You also said:
Which is why I said:
oh, and also:
The context for this is that EA/CG asserted before this TB started that choosing Geo TB over Hoth would earn a guild better rewards if the guild had 160M+ gp, and would approximately break even (depending on a number of factors) for guilds of 140-160M gp. I'm currently doubtful that's actually true, but I am, in fact, waiting for more evidence to come in to make any final decision. (And part of my reason for pessimism is that EA/CG explicitly compared final-star rewards to final-star rewards, not total rewards including special missions ... and I seriously doubt that there are very many 150M gp guilds better equipped to tackle the SMs than my 200M gp guild.)
If you want to criticize people who are leaping to conclusions without good evidence, why not criticize the same people I'm criticizing for asserting that EA/CG is fulfilling its promises and expanding G12 access. They haven't waited for the final gear drops to check, and they didn't say that they were waiting for them. It seems like your problem should be much more with them than with someone like me who is happy to use both real-world evidence currently available (like the 0 GET2 earned by my guild in p1, which I doubt very much ) as well as to make explicit my assumptions (like my admission that my argument on more limited g12 access only holds true if Negotiator is never a required ship, and/or if final gear drops don't make up for lost GET1).
Sure my argument could be wrong. But if it is, we would know exactly why, and we both know that I've previously said I haven't yet made a final judgement. People are free to examine my assumptions as well as to do what I'm going to do in 3 days by comparing new gear drops to the old gear drops.
Why not, and I know this must seem like crazy talk, but why not admit that there's good but unconfirmed reason to believe that g12 access is being held steady or even reduced and that a couple of key pieces of information, required missions for Negotiator and final gear drops, will make all the difference in that assessment?
You're the one who has already made up your mind that future evidence doesn't matter. I quote:
If you wanted to say that my position is pessimistic and you argue for more optimism, that's fine. But that's not what you did. You've given your final verdict. I've given reasons for serious concern and specified which facts we can only learn in the future that will allow us to verify whether or not rewards actually break even for a 140-160 M gp guild today - which was EA/CG's prediction.
Which is the more reasonable position?
Yes, it makes it more difficult, but legless soccer is no fun.
I don't complain about the tenacity per se (if you look at my original post, I merely wished that we had more information in the given kits so that we could anticipate such things and engage our brains in our gameplay, trying to make the best decisions possible). I also don't think that this is "lazier" game design than, say, giving every enemy 100% TM and huge offense bonuses so you never get a turn.
But whether it's fun game design is a different question. I do think that game design that is more fun would not eliminate what you do well, but allow your enemies to survive and fight back even when you're doing what you do best.
Game design that operates on the basis of simply denying you the ability to use what's super-cool about a squad may have the effect of upping the difficulty. However, we collect these things because we like the super-cool things that they do and want to use those abilities. If you want to create a challenge for the Ewoks, you can ban TM gain and throw dispels and buff immunity with every attack. Then they have to slowly plink away at the enemy with no buffs to increase their damage over the absolute minimum (the little fur balls hardly hit for anything, after all). It could become a tense race to see if your slow plinking and EE's healing eventually allow you to finish off the enemy before they finish off you.
But are Ewoks with no TM gain and no buffs any fun?
Of course not.
It's not even the debuffs per se, but effects that trigger when debuffs expire, like the extra damage on Vader's special, never happen if the debuffs don't land to begin with. In order for dark side toons to be cool and use their cool abilities, they have to land their debuffs.
The problem, if there is one, with super-high tenacity isn't that it makes it hard to win. The problem with high tenacity is that it makes the battles no fun.
I suppose if I were being paid $16.50 an hour to do play testing and debugging I wouldn't care. I suppose inside EA when designing a new TB the 40-hour grind can make you forget about such things. But I don't want to watch Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe try to play soccer after you surgically remove their legs. Even if you take the legs off the other team so that the USA team still has a chance to win, legless soccer would be not just tragic, it would also be boring as heck.
If low-tenacity clones needed to have double the obscene health that they have now in order to be a challenge to strong DS teams, then doubling the health is probably the design choice I would prefer just because even if my rate of success is the same or a bit lower, I have more fun playing my toons when they get to do the cool things that I collected and geared them to do.
EA/CG's frequent decisions to counter a toon by simply not letting it do what makes it cool does create difficulty, but it definitely reduces the fun.
Unnecessary intellectual exercise:
Now think about a challenge for Ewoks where you have a couple, maybe even three frequent taunters. Then you give one of the enemy a unique that makes it so that when any ally gains taunt, the lowest-health ally gains stealth (which is suppressed by the Taunt if the Taunter is the lowest-health ally, of course). Give another one of the enemy (or just make it part of the rules of that particular event) a power that makes it so that whenever any of their enemies (that is, when ever your ewoks) deals damage with an assist, each ally under X% health (it could even be under 100% health if necessary) heals 5% health. Alternatively, it could heal each other ally (so a toon couldn't heal from the attacks that hit itself), but the amount of healing would be boosted up to maybe 10% health.
Now your ewoks get to do all their cool ewok stuff (TM jumping, buffing, assisting), but it's super hard to actually finish anyone off unless all the Taunters are dead. You can assist like crazy when taking down someone's protection, but you have to lay off the assists when trying to finish off a toon in the yellow/red or all your little attacks will heal them as much as they damage them and you won't get anywhere.
If you're trying to finish off one of the taunters, you would also have to be careful about how you use Paploo - you don't want to dispel the taunt of the taunter in the yellow/red you're trying to kill and then be forced to attack a different taunter while the first heals up. So when Paploo's turn comes, you make sure you switch targets or use one of Paploo's specials (even though it heals the enemy a bit from the assists), then switch back to finish off the one toon you have on the ropes.
Done correctly, something like this can create a difficult to solve puzzle that the AI can never beat on auto, but which challenges the Ewoks without ever taking away a single thing that they do well.
That's the best kind of game design. That's what we should ask of EA/CG: challenges that create difficulty without ever taking away any of the elements that actually make your toons cool and the game fun.