Sector 5 inflict death mark isn’t working

Replies

  • There is a consumable for Frenzy. Initial Frenzy Tech.
  • Crayons
    565 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    Ultra wrote: »
    It’s not a bug, with DR lead the enemy unit inflicts deathmark on himself

    So you aren’t the one inflicting it

    The leader ability comes from Revan. It says inflict death mark. So surely it’s easy to see why it would be assumed Revan has inflicted the deathmark, rather than assume at times people can’t read or lack understanding. It at no point in the text says enemy inflicts deathmark upon themselves, nor is there anything in the text that would infer that were so.

    So it’s not exactly clear and easy to understand, as you seem to have addressed people that the problem is about reading the kit.




  • Ultra
    11449 posts Moderator
    Crayons wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    It’s not a bug, with DR lead the enemy unit inflicts deathmark on himself

    So you aren’t the one inflicting it

    The leader ability comes from Revan. It says inflict death mark. So surely it’s easy to see why it would be assumed Revan has inflicted the deathmark, rather than assume at times people can’t read or lack understanding. It at no point in the text says enemy inflicts deathmark upon themselves, nor is there anything in the text that would infer that were so.

    So it’s not exactly clear and easy to understand, as you seem to have addressed people that the problem is about reading the kit.



    I don't blame anyone for misunderstanding, and trying to use Darth Revan, and I expect many more to try it and then ask why it didn't work

    Ability text was fine back when DR was released because we never had to worry about inflicting deathmark X number of times, but I don't think its ok anymore and the text description needs to change to reflect that to prevent players from burning energy and battles
  • IronCross
    934 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    Ultra wrote: »
    Crayons wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    It’s not a bug, with DR lead the enemy unit inflicts deathmark on himself

    So you aren’t the one inflicting it

    The leader ability comes from Revan. It says inflict death mark. So surely it’s easy to see why it would be assumed Revan has inflicted the deathmark, rather than assume at times people can’t read or lack understanding. It at no point in the text says enemy inflicts deathmark upon themselves, nor is there anything in the text that would infer that were so.

    So it’s not exactly clear and easy to understand, as you seem to have addressed people that the problem is about reading the kit.



    I don't blame anyone for misunderstanding, and trying to use Darth Revan, and I expect many more to try it and then ask why it didn't work

    Ability text was fine back when DR was released because we never had to worry about inflicting deathmark X number of times, but I don't think its ok anymore and the text description needs to change to reflect that to prevent players from burning energy and battles

    Maybe we can rebrand SWGOH as shoots and lawyers since we need to split hairs all the time.

    Look, this is a game. If death mark is popping up on the other team it should be counted. Any logical person would assume that.
  • This is just absurdly stupid. If DR's leadership Deathmark not counting was actually CG's intent, then that is some pure scum on their part.

    No one should have to consult the swgoh.gg mechanics pages to understand a disk.

    No one in their right mind would read that feat, read DR's lead, and think it wouldn't work. This is 100% on CG for being misleading. Or, more likely IMO, CG goofed and didn't mean for DR to not count.
  • This is just absurdly stupid. If DR's leadership Deathmark not counting was actually CG's intent, then that is some pure scum on their part.

    No one should have to consult the swgoh.gg mechanics pages to understand a disk.

    No one in their right mind would read that feat, read DR's lead, and think it wouldn't work. This is 100% on CG for being misleading. Or, more likely IMO, CG goofed and didn't mean for DR to not count.

    I think they just screwed up and some of these other people just apologize or make excuses or try to explain things away. I believe it was intended to count.
  • IronCross wrote: »
    This is just absurdly stupid. If DR's leadership Deathmark not counting was actually CG's intent, then that is some pure scum on their part.

    No one should have to consult the swgoh.gg mechanics pages to understand a disk.

    No one in their right mind would read that feat, read DR's lead, and think it wouldn't work. This is 100% on CG for being misleading. Or, more likely IMO, CG goofed and didn't mean for DR to not count.

    I think they just screwed up and some of these other people just apologize or make excuses or try to explain things away. I believe it was intended to count.

    Yup. Their logic is some serious "falling off a building can't kill you, only the sudden stop when you hit the ground."
  • Heh. Did one battle with the Frenzy Tech and the feat completed.

    Odds that that bug sticks around next Conquest?
  • It’s quickly turning into dark souls where the only way understand a lot of it is via googling mechanics.

    If there are so many questions being raised (why are expose/deathmark kills not counting, which two characters are capable of applying random debuff x, etc) isn’t the real problem simply that they’ve massively over complicated what was once a fun simple easy to understand mode. You shouldn’t need to google or hit the forums to understand the game mechanics.

    There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that it’s even possible to test the number of feats and interactions introduced. They made this easy to modify gamemode, and then gone straight ahead and made sure it will never work.

    Hell just working out the test cases would be a mammoth undertaking let alone actually doing the testing too. And they say they can change this up every three months.

    They can’t even spot the new capital ship looses against almost every current one. Figuring that out basically involves playing a couple of realistic battles. But the testers were a) not testing the version that got released, and b) not testing with real world values (testing relic 9’s and such).

    No way cg can ever produce a conquest like this one that works out of the gate. Guaranteed every single time we get a change up in feats, bosses etc conquest will evacuate its bowels all over itself, and cry in yhe corner stinking the place up until cg cancels it again.
  • scuba
    14034 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    Xcien wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Xcien wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    This is similar to DoTs not counting for death.

    DR "is not applying it" the enemy leader is applying it to themselves.

    But it's DR's leader ability applying it. No different from DT applying it with his special. If DR wasn't in the battle as the leader, then there'd be no death mark. So you can't say he isn't applying it. The longer this conquest goes on the more CG's logic is shown to be flawed.
    gsk2f2pr57b4.jpeg

    Argue all you want it’s how the game mechanics work

    Yes, the game mechanics are illogical and heavily, deeply flawed. That's not an argument. That's a stated fact. CG should have reworded the feat to be "inflict X deathmarks with Death Trooper" since he's the only toon in the game who can inflict deathmark, apparently. Might as well just stick his name right on it. Not doing so implies multiple toons can do it and we know now that that's false.

    Someone needs to go back to game design school bc apparently CG have created a game where a large percentage of "kills" are just enemies committing suicide.

    For now… we might get others in the future so it’s future proofing

    But almost each sector has feats that only <= 2 units can do

    Sector 1 - Potency down (GMY / Young Lando)
    Sector 3- Frenzy (Bistan / Bossk)
    Sector 5 - Deathmark (Deathtrooper)

    It’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it illogical or flawed - they know what they are doing

    That doesn’t make it any better. Having feats that only a one or two characters can do isn’t really that fun. And why am I not surprised that it’s intentional; CG knows what they’re doing, they’re ruining what was once a fun game mode so they can make more money.

    I think these feats are fine, but the experience could be better if we had data disks to inflict deathmark or potency down, or gain frenzy etc

    But then CG might claim that it’s the disk inflicting those debuffs, not the characters.

    lol

    I get you are mad that conquest isn't simple this time around, but lets not confuse our misunderstanding of game mechanics and blaming CG for it

    That is assuming the person that came up with the feat understands the mechanics. With the way cancelquest 2 was bugged and the transformation ultimates are bugged I have suspicious.
  • Darth Revan’s leader ability to inflict deathmark on the leader if an enemy falls below 50% health during his turn doesn’t count towards the sector 5 feat.
    In sector 5 had Mother Talzin inflicted with deathmark and it didn’t count towards the feat. Inflicted deathmark with DT on AV and that one did…
  • Dal_Zuba
    189 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    w1kuwnlv7cj7.png
  • I know it’s a passive inflict that DR does but that’s a bummer.
  • Iy4oy4s
    2923 posts Member
    edited September 2021
    According to the game, the enemy is putting death mark on themselves, thus you don’t get credit. Deathtrooper is the only toon that can get this feat done. Isn’t this conquest fun?!?
  • Lrrr
    172 posts Member
    Deathmark from Darth Revan’s leadership does not count towards the conquest feat. So that drops the number of characters who can inflict this debuff to 1? Death Trooper? Is that intended? Guessing not, just not tested….
  • Wai doesn't mean it shouldn't change.
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    This is similar to DoTs not counting for death.

    DR "is not applying it" the enemy leader is applying it to themselves.

    But it's DR's leader ability applying it. No different from DT applying it with his special. If DR wasn't in the battle as the leader, then there'd be no death mark. So you can't say he isn't applying it. The longer this conquest goes on the more CG's logic is shown to be flawed.
    gsk2f2pr57b4.jpeg

    Argue all you want it’s how the game mechanics work

    Yes, the game mechanics are illogical and heavily, deeply flawed. That's not an argument. That's a stated fact. CG should have reworded the feat to be "inflict X deathmarks with Death Trooper" since he's the only toon in the game who can inflict deathmark, apparently. Might as well just stick his name right on it. Not doing so implies multiple toons can do it and we know now that that's false.

    Someone needs to go back to game design school bc apparently CG have created a game where a large percentage of "kills" are just enemies committing suicide.

    For now… we might get others in the future so it’s future proofing

    But almost each sector has feats that only <= 2 units can do

    Sector 1 - Potency down (GMY / Young Lando)
    Sector 3- Frenzy (Bistan / Bossk)
    Sector 5 - Deathmark (Deathtrooper)

    It’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it illogical or flawed - they know what they are doing

    So instead of having a clear description now stating the 1-2 characters that can do it, they “future proof” it so the don’t have to change the description later?

    That’s just lazy and clearly not done with the players’ best interest or effective communication in mind. Very disappointing.
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    This is similar to DoTs not counting for death.

    DR "is not applying it" the enemy leader is applying it to themselves.

    But it's DR's leader ability applying it. No different from DT applying it with his special. If DR wasn't in the battle as the leader, then there'd be no death mark. So you can't say he isn't applying it. The longer this conquest goes on the more CG's logic is shown to be flawed.
    gsk2f2pr57b4.jpeg

    Argue all you want it’s how the game mechanics work

    Yes, the game mechanics are illogical and heavily, deeply flawed. That's not an argument. That's a stated fact. CG should have reworded the feat to be "inflict X deathmarks with Death Trooper" since he's the only toon in the game who can inflict deathmark, apparently. Might as well just stick his name right on it. Not doing so implies multiple toons can do it and we know now that that's false.

    Someone needs to go back to game design school bc apparently CG have created a game where a large percentage of "kills" are just enemies committing suicide.

    For now… we might get others in the future so it’s future proofing

    But almost each sector has feats that only <= 2 units can do

    Sector 1 - Potency down (GMY / Young Lando)
    Sector 3- Frenzy (Bistan / Bossk)
    Sector 5 - Deathmark (Deathtrooper)

    It’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it illogical or flawed - they know what they are doing

    There's actually a consumable that gives your entire team frenzy. Not sure if that would count but it would be interesting to test.
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    Expensive test.

    Just like all of conquest - gotta waste things just to find out they don't work.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    Expensive test.

    Just like all of conquest - gotta waste things just to find out they don't work.


    And then to be told it’s you who just doesn’t understand the kits from a perspective of the inner working of the codings, and you should have found out.
  • TVF wrote: »
    Expensive test.

    Just like all of conquest - gotta waste things just to find out they don't work.

    What's 75 crystals if you're dropping enough to complete this dumpster fire of repetition anyway?
  • Ultra wrote: »
    For now… we might get others in the future so it’s future proofing

    But almost each sector has feats that only <= 2 units can do

    Sector 1 - Potency down (GMY / Young Lando)
    Sector 3- Frenzy (Bistan / Bossk)
    Sector 5 - Deathmark (Deathtrooper)

    It’s intentional, so I wouldn’t call it illogical or flawed - they know what they are doing

    If this behaviour is intentional, then it's borderline malicious. If you say that during the design stage of these feats they checked who can contribute to them, then they surely realised that the inly playable characters relating to Deathmark are DT and DR.

    As players, we rely on the devs explaining the mechanics to us and language in this case is super important. Thankfully, we have skilled individuals in the community who can literally dig into the files and explain how things actually work. In the game we have two examples of this leadership mechanic:
    --- Dooku ---
    5vaoeg8m8ib0.jpg

    --- Revan ---
    430azez35ffu.jpg

    Dooku's kit clearly explains they inflict the debuff themselves. The wording in Revan's kit has mention of self infliction, so the logical conclusion is the Deathmark is being applied by Revan. And as you point, the devs know what they're doing and they understand the behind the scenes mechanics, yet they don't bother to clarify these conflicts, instead they double down with a dismissing blogpost.

    The last couple of years have highlighted the incredibly poor quality of development, where the majority of updates introduces more errors than fixes and there seems to be little accountability for their incompetence, only because their game is the one with a Star Wars skin and no competition.

  • rj1gvkubxufo.png

    Definitely wouldn’t say “resolved” since the kit reads that it’s DR inflicting the deathmark and not the character on itself. I know you’re being facetious/sarcastic but anyone trying to defend this is just blatantly wrong in general (not saying you are).

    I mean in Dooku’s kit is specifically says the enemy inflicts the debuffs on themselves. This doesn’t. I can’t even with the devs at this point. Not only that but leaving the game in such a state during a long weekend is just shameful.
  • I wasn’t being any of those things. When I posted this was a separate thread, when a perfectly good one already existed.

    Now it’s merged, and it looks as though I’ve directed someone to the very thread he posted in.
  • I wasn’t being any of those things. When I posted this was a separate thread, when a perfectly good one already existed.

    Now it’s merged, and it looks as though I’ve directed someone to the very thread he posted in.

    Ahhhh. Well then….lovely mergers. Point still stands though overall. This conquest is just a nightmare
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I wasn’t being any of those things. When I posted this was a separate thread, when a perfectly good one already existed.

    Now it’s merged, and it looks as though I’ve directed someone to the very thread he posted in.

    Ahhhh. Well then….lovely mergers. Point still stands though overall. This conquest is just a nightmare
    No debate here. Enjoyed getting CAT at cost of 0 crystals. No chance on earth I’ll even unlock Maul after 3 conquests.
Sign In or Register to comment.