What are people using for the TM strip feat against Mando in sector 2? I used RJT and friends in normal but can’t keep everyone alive long enough to get it down to one player and use the crate
Vader lead. I voluntarily relinquish MM so that they can get TM back when it gets down to zero, then TM swap with Thrawn. With cooldown reduction, the MM is effectively infinite and Thrawn can often (though not always) use TM swap special two turns in a row. you can use Phasma as a backup in case Thrawn's TM doesn't work for you (+50%TM to all Allies). If you have him geared, of course you should throw Gideon in. Tarkin, of course, is mandatory.
Vader (L), Thrawn, Tarkin, (Phasma?), (Gideon?). .
Imps with Gideon. Kill Mando quickly. And then target the box with nothing but single target and buffing abilities. You remove the dots, and gideons cooldown comes off his main assist - use it to strip TM.
Do that several times - and then switch away from the box and kill the rest. With over 200 stacks of ET let’s just say you won’t have trouble finishing off the team.
I feel 2 weeks is too long. Make it 1 week but slightly tweak the stamina and energy recovery to compensate.
Hell no, what are you talking about, you do realize u have to do BOTH normal and hard mode right? In 2 weeks
You only do normal once - and I stand by my assertion that 14 days is too long. 7-10 would be great, or introduce an ‘early checkout’ option where you can claim your rewards within the timeframe. You still get the same rewards as someone that completes after 14 days versus someone that does this in 3 so there is no risk that over a period of time person A gets more than person B over the same eligibility period.
What are people using for the TM strip feat against Mando in sector 2? I used RJT and friends in normal but can’t keep everyone alive long enough to get it down to one player and use the crate
I used geos with a load of turn meter reduction data discs.
There damage is low but was constantly stripping turn meter and one hit into the box removed all dots as they multi assist.
14 full Sith Squads AND 50 Thermal Detonators feat in the same sector. Yet another mindless grind...
It took 1 battle for 50 detonator, just run greedo, zam and dengar with the cool down reduction data disk easy peasy, you don't even need to win the match, I timed out, play against the Phoenix squad
Hmm, didn't know it can be done without win, I was under impression that counter didn't increased when I lost one such fight on the normal. Will try that.
Trying Sector 1 15 turns boss feat. 2 fights with JTR squad. 18 turns in a row in the first fight, 27 in the second. No feat. And yes, I'm completely sure any enemies (including stunned) didn't take a turn between those moves. Did I miss something or it's a bug?
14 full Sith Squads AND 50 Thermal Detonators feat in the same sector. Yet another mindless grind...
It took 1 battle for 50 detonator, just run greedo, zam and dengar with the cool down reduction data disk easy peasy, you don't even need to win the match, I timed out, play against the Phoenix squad
Hmm, didn't know it can be done without win, I was under impression that counter didn't increased when I lost one such fight on the normal. Will try that.
It is currently bugged, only things from winning matches should count towards feats
only things from winning matches should count towards feats
Wait, I get that should be the way of it for the Boss fight feats, but those cumulative over a phase or over the whole Conquest event feats seem like they should include ALL critical hits or thermal detonators or enemies killed or whatever.
I mean, CG has the power to decide what the rules of the game are going to be, but that's not a rule change I would support.
However, that said, GL Rey + 4xJawas is both an automatic win against Geos, but also an automatic feat completion. I could see more than 10 detonators on every Geo before they died, and Geo Brute died twice from the detonators. It was easily over 70 and probably over 90 detonators in that single battle.
So, for people who have GL Rey but no relic or high-g12 toons that dish Thermal detonators, there is hope. My Jawas are all g9 and under, I think. So it doesn't take much gear. I imagine if you have Scavenger up high enough to use his passive special, you could have the others at g1/level1 just sitting under Rey's protection.
only things from winning matches should count towards feats
Wait, I get that should be the way of it for the Boss fight feats, but those cumulative over a phase or over the whole Conquest event feats seem like they should include ALL critical hits or thermal detonators or enemies killed or whatever.
I mean, CG has the power to decide what the rules of the game are going to be, but that's not a rule change I would support.
However, that said, GL Rey + 4xJawas is both an automatic win against Geos, but also an automatic feat completion. I could see more than 10 detonators on every Geo before they died, and Geo Brute died twice from the detonators. It was easily over 70 and probably over 90 detonators in that single battle.
So, for people who have GL Rey but no relic or high-g12 toons that dish Thermal detonators, there is hope. My Jawas are all g9 and under, I think. So it doesn't take much gear. I imagine if you have Scavenger up high enough to use his passive special, you could have the others at g1/level1 just sitting under Rey's protection.
It's not "a change", it's the way it's supposed to be, but it is bugged.
That is the way feats work in any circumstance, GAC, GCs, and now GCon.
I feel 2 weeks is too long. Make it 1 week but slightly tweak the stamina and energy recovery to compensate.
Hell no, what are you talking about, you do realize u have to do BOTH normal and hard mode right? In 2 weeks
You only do normal once - and I stand by my assertion that 14 days is too long. 7-10 would be great, or introduce an ‘early checkout’ option where you can claim your rewards within the timeframe. You still get the same rewards as someone that completes after 14 days versus someone that does this in 3 so there is no risk that over a period of time person A gets more than person B over the same eligibility period.
To piggyback off of the rewards claim portion in a slightly different way: since the rewards are subjectively better or worse for individuals as progression is reached, I wouldn’t mind a rewards lock in button. I am fairly confident after playing hard mode that I can clear the board, but I don’t want max rewards due to pieces included and taken away. I also would like to keep playing without earning higher crates (I think the mode is fun).
For example, getting the T5 crate is my goal for rewards but going up to T6 doesn’t interest me. I know I can just stop playing the mode to ensure the rewards I want, but being able to engage after achieving desired rewards would be nice.
So who’s going to do hard mode this time? And what’s your GP? I’m doing it with a flat 4 mil, and I think I’ll get smacked. But it will be interesting to see how the difficulty is.
7m. Unlocked box 6. But I'm going to struggle with box 7
Just did the math. I need 58 more banners to unlock Red Crate. Can skip most of the SEE/JML feats and pull it off hopefully with time to spare. It's the repetitive "x battles with y faction" sector feats that are grinding.
Ok, after just completing hard mode, I have a few pieces of feedback for CG, @CG_Doja_Fett
1). Would love to see aeromagnifiers available for purchase in wandering merchant (all other relic pieces are)
2). I would not recommend changing the difficulty of hard mode, as it is a challenge but beatable
3). I would recommend increasing drop chance for purple data disks
4). Maybe add it so after you complete conquest there’s no payment penalty to move data disks, because after I beat it I wanted to test some things, but ran out of keycards
Other than that I love hard mode, and it was a great challenge, I’ve enjoyed playing it and just got the second highest crate.
Assuming that I can eventually beat the Sector 5 boss, I should be able to get the highest box, but I've had some stupidly bad luck so far - like toons dodging GL Rey's ultimate so I couldn't get 3 deaths in one turn, that sort of thing. So I have fewer finished feats than I thought I would have at this point ... but they all seem very doable, even if they're not actually done.
It's not "a change", it's the way it's supposed to be, but it is bugged.
I heard you about the way it's supposed to be. However when I said it was a change, that's absolutely accurate because it currently operates one way, and to make it operate the way you're talking about would be a change in the current operation.
It wouldn't be a change in **intent**
But it is a change in game operation/function.
I was speaking perfectly accurately. It's a change. The change might be, from CG's perspective, fixing a bug, but that's still a change from the status quo.
And as for me, I oppose that change. I'd rather see CG change their intention than change their code in this case. That's what I was saying.
Assuming that I can eventually beat the Sector 5 boss, I should be able to get the highest box, but I've had some stupidly bad luck so far - like toons dodging GL Rey's ultimate so I couldn't get 3 deaths in one turn, that sort of thing. So I have fewer finished feats than I thought I would have at this point ... but they all seem very doable, even if they're not actually done.
It's not "a change", it's the way it's supposed to be, but it is bugged.
I heard you about the way it's supposed to be. However when I said it was a change, that's absolutely accurate because it currently operates one way, and to make it operate the way you're talking about would be a change in the current operation.
It wouldn't be a change in **intent**
But it is a change in game operation/function.
I was speaking perfectly accurately. It's a change. The change might be, from CG's perspective, fixing a bug, but that's still a change from the status quo.
And as for me, I oppose that change. I'd rather see CG change their intention than change their code in this case. That's what I was saying.
While this one case (and maybe a few others), not all feats in GCon are like this, this particular one and any other like this are bugged. Yes in the root sense of the word it is a change, but it's because it is not working correctly and in accordance with ever other use of this type of element in the game.
Opposing bug fixes that make things operate the same they do everywhere else and in this game mode is an interesting stance, but opposing bug fixes doesnt impact the fact that they will be changed and that change happening or not is not based on player feedback.
So as for reward scaling, I got 2nd highest crate (can’t go any further w the feats), here’s my profile, for those trying to guess how far they will get. https://swgoh.gg/p/546446366/
Vader padme and shaak carried me most of the way. Found Shaak Ti clones very good against: Geos, JKR, DR, and Grevous. If anyone needs good conquest counters
opposing bug fixes doesnt impact the fact that they will be changed and that change happening or not is not based on player feedback.
It doesn't change whether they're currently scheduled to be changed, but this test of GB:Conquest came with an invitation for player feedback with the idea that they can and will change things - things not yet specified - based on whatever feedback they get.
Whether I got my idea (about the way things ought to be) from a bug or from my imagination, I am currently advocating that they allow people to play to lose (or at least not play to win) to achieve certain feats, including the ones under discussion (total crits > x over a full conquest; total thermal detonators > y over a full sector, etc).
Most changes players advocate never come to pass, but they did invite feedback, and this is part of mine. All I care about is continuing to improve the game experience for everyone. Maybe CG will disagree with me and won't revisit their decision on how to construct the feats, but the fact that changes are unlikely to happen based on my feedback doesn't mean I shouldn't supply feedback to CG when asked.
So here I am, articulating my position. The next thing that should happen is in CG's hands, not yours or mine.
Every ten turns (I think it's every 10 turns) you get an instant kill, if you want it (like an event special ability that does the same thing in GAC). If you don't use it, however, it doesn't pass back to the other side to allow them to use it (the way it does in GAC). It's all you & only you.
opposing bug fixes doesnt impact the fact that they will be changed and that change happening or not is not based on player feedback.
It doesn't change whether they're currently scheduled to be changed, but this test of GB:Conquest came with an invitation for player feedback with the idea that they can and will change things - things not yet specified - based on whatever feedback they get.
Whether I got my idea (about the way things ought to be) from a bug or from my imagination, I am currently advocating that they allow people to play to lose (or at least not play to win) to achieve certain feats, including the ones under discussion (total crits > x over a full conquest; total thermal detonators > y over a full sector, etc).
Most changes players advocate never come to pass, but they did invite feedback, and this is part of mine. All I care about is continuing to improve the game experience for everyone. Maybe CG will disagree with me and won't revisit their decision on how to construct the feats, but the fact that changes are unlikely to happen based on my feedback doesn't mean I shouldn't supply feedback to CG when asked.
So here I am, articulating my position. The next thing that should happen is in CG's hands, not yours or mine.
I understand and was not saying anything is in my control, I was just trying to make sure we are all aware that this is a bug, and that bugs get fixed. Players always have some feelings about bug fixes, one way or the other, but that doesnt change the fact that they will be changed to be in accordance with they way they should be when they are used in multiple areas.
Just trying to make everyone aware that it's not being ignored, when this situation arises, but is being handled in a consistent manner as other elements like this.
Every ten turns (I think it's every 10 turns) you get an instant kill, if you want it (like an event special ability that does the same thing in GAC). If you don't use it, however, it doesn't pass back to the other side to allow them to use it (the way it does in GAC). It's all you & only you.
I believe it is based upon buffs on your characters and not turns. I believe every 10 buffs your characters gain they will also gain massively overpowered buff and the next ability they use (even if not an attack) will do massive damage.
Thank you, Konju. I knew it was something like that, but not aware of the particulars.
It's interesting that it functions that way, because with those auto-defense-buffs and auto-heal-over-time-buffs data disks means that you could set it up so that literally every time one of your characters takes a turn they deal massive damage. That's actually **much** worse than how I thought it operated.
Replies
Vader (L), Thrawn, Tarkin, (Phasma?), (Gideon?). .
Do that several times - and then switch away from the box and kill the rest. With over 200 stacks of ET let’s just say you won’t have trouble finishing off the team.
You only do normal once - and I stand by my assertion that 14 days is too long. 7-10 would be great, or introduce an ‘early checkout’ option where you can claim your rewards within the timeframe. You still get the same rewards as someone that completes after 14 days versus someone that does this in 3 so there is no risk that over a period of time person A gets more than person B over the same eligibility period.
I used geos with a load of turn meter reduction data discs.
There damage is low but was constantly stripping turn meter and one hit into the box removed all dots as they multi assist.
Also gave me the less than 6 special ability feat
Hmm, didn't know it can be done without win, I was under impression that counter didn't increased when I lost one such fight on the normal. Will try that.
It is currently bugged, only things from winning matches should count towards feats
Wait, I get that should be the way of it for the Boss fight feats, but those cumulative over a phase or over the whole Conquest event feats seem like they should include ALL critical hits or thermal detonators or enemies killed or whatever.
I mean, CG has the power to decide what the rules of the game are going to be, but that's not a rule change I would support.
However, that said, GL Rey + 4xJawas is both an automatic win against Geos, but also an automatic feat completion. I could see more than 10 detonators on every Geo before they died, and Geo Brute died twice from the detonators. It was easily over 70 and probably over 90 detonators in that single battle.
So, for people who have GL Rey but no relic or high-g12 toons that dish Thermal detonators, there is hope. My Jawas are all g9 and under, I think. So it doesn't take much gear. I imagine if you have Scavenger up high enough to use his passive special, you could have the others at g1/level1 just sitting under Rey's protection.
It's not "a change", it's the way it's supposed to be, but it is bugged.
That is the way feats work in any circumstance, GAC, GCs, and now GCon.
To piggyback off of the rewards claim portion in a slightly different way: since the rewards are subjectively better or worse for individuals as progression is reached, I wouldn’t mind a rewards lock in button. I am fairly confident after playing hard mode that I can clear the board, but I don’t want max rewards due to pieces included and taken away. I also would like to keep playing without earning higher crates (I think the mode is fun).
For example, getting the T5 crate is my goal for rewards but going up to T6 doesn’t interest me. I know I can just stop playing the mode to ensure the rewards I want, but being able to engage after achieving desired rewards would be nice.
7m. Unlocked box 6. But I'm going to struggle with box 7
1). Would love to see aeromagnifiers available for purchase in wandering merchant (all other relic pieces are)
2). I would not recommend changing the difficulty of hard mode, as it is a challenge but beatable
3). I would recommend increasing drop chance for purple data disks
4). Maybe add it so after you complete conquest there’s no payment penalty to move data disks, because after I beat it I wanted to test some things, but ran out of keycards
Other than that I love hard mode, and it was a great challenge, I’ve enjoyed playing it and just got the second highest crate.
I heard you about the way it's supposed to be. However when I said it was a change, that's absolutely accurate because it currently operates one way, and to make it operate the way you're talking about would be a change in the current operation.
It wouldn't be a change in **intent**
But it is a change in game operation/function.
I was speaking perfectly accurately. It's a change. The change might be, from CG's perspective, fixing a bug, but that's still a change from the status quo.
And as for me, I oppose that change. I'd rather see CG change their intention than change their code in this case. That's what I was saying.
While this one case (and maybe a few others), not all feats in GCon are like this, this particular one and any other like this are bugged. Yes in the root sense of the word it is a change, but it's because it is not working correctly and in accordance with ever other use of this type of element in the game.
Opposing bug fixes that make things operate the same they do everywhere else and in this game mode is an interesting stance, but opposing bug fixes doesnt impact the fact that they will be changed and that change happening or not is not based on player feedback.
Vader padme and shaak carried me most of the way. Found Shaak Ti clones very good against: Geos, JKR, DR, and Grevous. If anyone needs good conquest counters
I know of 4: Dread, Booming Voice, Massively Overpowered and Deadly Momentum.
It doesn't change whether they're currently scheduled to be changed, but this test of GB:Conquest came with an invitation for player feedback with the idea that they can and will change things - things not yet specified - based on whatever feedback they get.
Whether I got my idea (about the way things ought to be) from a bug or from my imagination, I am currently advocating that they allow people to play to lose (or at least not play to win) to achieve certain feats, including the ones under discussion (total crits > x over a full conquest; total thermal detonators > y over a full sector, etc).
Most changes players advocate never come to pass, but they did invite feedback, and this is part of mine. All I care about is continuing to improve the game experience for everyone. Maybe CG will disagree with me and won't revisit their decision on how to construct the feats, but the fact that changes are unlikely to happen based on my feedback doesn't mean I shouldn't supply feedback to CG when asked.
So here I am, articulating my position. The next thing that should happen is in CG's hands, not yours or mine.
What is massively overpowered? Haven’t seen that one.
I understand and was not saying anything is in my control, I was just trying to make sure we are all aware that this is a bug, and that bugs get fixed. Players always have some feelings about bug fixes, one way or the other, but that doesnt change the fact that they will be changed to be in accordance with they way they should be when they are used in multiple areas.
Just trying to make everyone aware that it's not being ignored, when this situation arises, but is being handled in a consistent manner as other elements like this.
I believe it is based upon buffs on your characters and not turns. I believe every 10 buffs your characters gain they will also gain massively overpowered buff and the next ability they use (even if not an attack) will do massive damage.
It's interesting that it functions that way, because with those auto-defense-buffs and auto-heal-over-time-buffs data disks means that you could set it up so that literally every time one of your characters takes a turn they deal massive damage. That's actually **much** worse than how I thought it operated.