In normal conquest sector 5, my deathmark through DR lead on vader was not counted and it is still 0/5 in my board. The text says inflict deathmark. Any specific reason or just a glitch?
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
Ambiguous ability description is something we can entirely blame on CG.
If we need to dig through the code to know how exactly does an ability work then there should be no discussion about who is to blame for the situation.
It appears this is normal. It’s all in the code and we should know the inner workings of the code better.
When using DR, these enemies inflict deathmark on themselves, and damaging them with debuffs like DOT’s doesn’t kill them, they actually kill themselves.
While not diagreing with your point, those self same mechanics are stupid.
"Enemies inflict deathmatk on themselves". Er, OK. Makes sense. 🤦♂️
It makes sense from technical perspective. In programming there are almost always several solutions to a problem.
CG chose the self-inflicted DM because given the specific conditions it was a way to have the desired effect.
As long as it wasn’t important there was no need to clarify that the logic of the technical implementation does not match with the semantics of the description. However, there is absolutely no point in having incorrect descriptions if you can do it right.
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Or SLKR. Zombie cheese ftw.
Problem with SLKR is that he doesn’t have an ability that won’t eventually flatten everything in front of him. SEE can Link and in a real pinch trigger Ultimate to stall for time while waiting for Death Trooper to act or revive.
Well, that and I have SEE and not SLKR. Zombie cheese would probably work better against some teams. Rey is probably best to get multiple Deathmarks in one battle.
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Or SLKR. Zombie cheese ftw.
Problem with SLKR is that he doesn’t have an ability that won’t eventually flatten everything in front of him. SEE can Link and in a real pinch trigger Ultimate to stall for time while waiting for Death Trooper to act or revive.
Well, that and I have SEE and not SLKR. Zombie cheese would probably work better against some teams. Rey is probably best to get multiple Deathmarks in one battle.
Fair enough. I thought we were in the spitball theorycrafting phase of the thread.
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Or SLKR. Zombie cheese ftw.
Problem with SLKR is that he doesn’t have an ability that won’t eventually flatten everything in front of him. SEE can Link and in a real pinch trigger Ultimate to stall for time while waiting for Death Trooper to act or revive.
Well, that and I have SEE and not SLKR. Zombie cheese would probably work better against some teams. Rey is probably best to get multiple Deathmarks in one battle.
Fair enough. I thought we were in the spitball theorycrafting phase of the thread.
Maybe we are. But spitballing in this Conquest is awfully expensive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless of whether CG says this is WAI, the wording is the kit description is vague at best. CG is notorious for using verbal gymnastics cover what probably is a bug, but they will never admit it. I have worked in the IT industry for 15 years, as a scrum master, product owner and product manager. If this were an issue with my product, I would immediately admit that either the wording in the kit description could be improved and deploy my content team to revise the description, which takes a minimum of engineering effort. Or, I would admit the bug.
If it really is WAI and there is only 1 character in the whole game that can be used to complete the feat, that is....well consistently slimy policy on their part.
PS - I hope someone gets to read this post before it gets deleted, like a few other of my critical posts. If you can't take criticism, why do you have a forum?
something is wrong!!! absolutely wrong.
Mind you: If the DR leader's skill, which COSTS us a ZETA material, is what inflicts the death mark on the opposing leader, then it should count. Remove the DR from the leader slot and you don't have the death mark anymore, simple as that. Either the game is giving us the wrong description of the feat or it just doesn't care about the community of players who spend their time leveling up these characters. DR, Fallen Bastila, Canderous ordo and Hk 47, all of these should apply deathmark in the conquest, because they apply in every other event in the game, but not on the conquest??? for me this is very wrong
this is wrong!!! absolutely wrong.
Mind you: If the DR leader's skill, which COSTS us a ZETA material, is what inflicts the death mark on the opposing leader, then it should count. Remove the DR from the leader slot and you don't have the death mark anymore, simple as that. Either the game is giving us the wrong description of the feat or it just doesn't care about the community of players who spend their time leveling up these characters. DR, Fallen Bastila, Canderous ordo and Hk 47, all of these should apply deathmark in the conquest, because they apply in every other event in the game but this one??? for me this is very wrong
Note: if you’ve got energy to spare (hah) try running something along the lines of SEE (or any high-power Leader, Rey might do better), Thrawn, Daka, Zombie, Death Trooper. Daka can raise him back to get the deathmarks, and she has to be killed 3 times to actually die. I got one Deathmark with a G2 (not twelve, two) Death Trooper that way vs a Mothma team. Probably a better team to try against but I’m not sure what that would be - my current other options are ITs and GAS…
Or SLKR. Zombie cheese ftw.
Problem with SLKR is that he doesn’t have an ability that won’t eventually flatten everything in front of him. SEE can Link and in a real pinch trigger Ultimate to stall for time while waiting for Death Trooper to act or revive.
Well, that and I have SEE and not SLKR. Zombie cheese would probably work better against some teams. Rey is probably best to get multiple Deathmarks in one battle.
Fair enough. I thought we were in the spitball theorycrafting phase of the thread.
There is no theory crafting for conquest anymore. It's only whale harder on old characters and bad factions 😉. Can't wait for conquest 10... "Win 30 battles with R9 tuskens"
But then CG might claim that it’s the disk inflicting those debuffs, not the characters.
But the language is simply "attempt to inflict" or "inflict". Nowhere does it say that the character should do this. The way that the feat is written, it's obvious that the meaning is that the **player** has to "attempt to inflict" or "inflict". If it's the player's choice to put in DR or the player's choice to use a data disk, then the player is "attempting to inflict" or "inflicting".
Now, if it said, "attempt to inflict using a toon from X faction (or just "using X toon"), then they would be able to justify writing it the way that they do.
But toons don't read, CG. It's the players that read. It's the players for whom the descriptions are written. If it's addressed to me and says, "attempt to inflict" I should be able to do that using any tool at my disposal, including DR's leadership or some hypothetical data disk. Only when they say, "using X faction" or "using X toon" should they limit my ability to accomplish the feat in the way that they do with DR's leadership.
The way that they're writing the descriptions for the players but pretending the descriptions are written for the characters is not honest, and it sure as heck isn't clear, as evidenced by how many people show up here not understanding that the feat behavior is WAI despite flagrantly violating the RAW.
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.
It really is impossible to distinguish whether things are yet another example of pure scum on their part or yet another example of their gross incompetence.
Funny thing here with so many people (particularly those in charge) trying to make stupid excuses and saying people just weren't understanding, as of a few hours ago the developers were aware of a problem and "working on it".
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.
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
Intentional doesn't imply logical or flawless - tons of things that CG does are intentional and illogical and flawed.
I can't understand how one can give even token lip service to defending anything about this conquest.
They already messed things up so bad on its release after a lengthy delay that they are obviously just denying any further mistakes as damage control, trying to save face.
I wouldn't be as frustrated if people just owned up and stopped lying about things. Quit pretending that everything was well thought out and planned and it's all of us who are too dumb to understand. Just admit this was a dumpster fire, say it's being fixed, and move on. The continual patronizing "explanations" are the insult to injury.
"At the end of each turn, if an enemy fell below 50% Health during that turn, inflict Deathmark on the enemy leader for 1 turn if Darth Revan is in the leader slot and not the ally slot. This Deathmark can't be copied, dispelled, evaded, or resisted."
So this text doesn’t mean that you apply deathmark? I just don’t understand why CG just admit it’s a bug and change it or at least change the wording to make it more clear.
Replies
Ambiguous ability description is something we can entirely blame on CG.
If we need to dig through the code to know how exactly does an ability work then there should be no discussion about who is to blame for the situation.
It makes sense from technical perspective. In programming there are almost always several solutions to a problem.
CG chose the self-inflicted DM because given the specific conditions it was a way to have the desired effect.
As long as it wasn’t important there was no need to clarify that the logic of the technical implementation does not match with the semantics of the description. However, there is absolutely no point in having incorrect descriptions if you can do it right.
Or SLKR. Zombie cheese ftw.
Problem with SLKR is that he doesn’t have an ability that won’t eventually flatten everything in front of him. SEE can Link and in a real pinch trigger Ultimate to stall for time while waiting for Death Trooper to act or revive.
Well, that and I have SEE and not SLKR. Zombie cheese would probably work better against some teams. Rey is probably best to get multiple Deathmarks in one battle.
Fair enough. I thought we were in the spitball theorycrafting phase of the thread.
You probably used Darth Revan. According to CG, the enemy unit inflicts Deathmark on themselves, so it doesn’t count towards the feat.
Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback is appreciated.
Read the thread
Maybe we are. But spitballing in this Conquest is awfully expensive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If it really is WAI and there is only 1 character in the whole game that can be used to complete the feat, that is....well consistently slimy policy on their part.
PS - I hope someone gets to read this post before it gets deleted, like a few other of my critical posts. If you can't take criticism, why do you have a forum?
Mind you: If the DR leader's skill, which COSTS us a ZETA material, is what inflicts the death mark on the opposing leader, then it should count. Remove the DR from the leader slot and you don't have the death mark anymore, simple as that. Either the game is giving us the wrong description of the feat or it just doesn't care about the community of players who spend their time leveling up these characters. DR, Fallen Bastila, Canderous ordo and Hk 47, all of these should apply deathmark in the conquest, because they apply in every other event in the game, but not on the conquest??? for me this is very wrong
Mind you: If the DR leader's skill, which COSTS us a ZETA material, is what inflicts the death mark on the opposing leader, then it should count. Remove the DR from the leader slot and you don't have the death mark anymore, simple as that. Either the game is giving us the wrong description of the feat or it just doesn't care about the community of players who spend their time leveling up these characters. DR, Fallen Bastila, Canderous ordo and Hk 47, all of these should apply deathmark in the conquest, because they apply in every other event in the game but this one??? for me this is very wrong
There is no theory crafting for conquest anymore. It's only whale harder on old characters and bad factions 😉. Can't wait for conquest 10... "Win 30 battles with R9 tuskens"
Except that then in a month they'll change the feats and he won't help at all.
But the language is simply "attempt to inflict" or "inflict". Nowhere does it say that the character should do this. The way that the feat is written, it's obvious that the meaning is that the **player** has to "attempt to inflict" or "inflict". If it's the player's choice to put in DR or the player's choice to use a data disk, then the player is "attempting to inflict" or "inflicting".
Now, if it said, "attempt to inflict using a toon from X faction (or just "using X toon"), then they would be able to justify writing it the way that they do.
But toons don't read, CG. It's the players that read. It's the players for whom the descriptions are written. If it's addressed to me and says, "attempt to inflict" I should be able to do that using any tool at my disposal, including DR's leadership or some hypothetical data disk. Only when they say, "using X faction" or "using X toon" should they limit my ability to accomplish the feat in the way that they do with DR's leadership.
The way that they're writing the descriptions for the players but pretending the descriptions are written for the characters is not honest, and it sure as heck isn't clear, as evidenced by how many people show up here not understanding that the feat behavior is WAI despite flagrantly violating the RAW.
It really is impossible to distinguish whether things are yet another example of pure scum on their part or yet another example of their gross incompetence.
https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Normal-Conquest-stage-5-test-3-doesn-t-count-applying-of-death/m-p/10708350#M51898
Any reasonable person reading DR’s leadership would expect this deathmark to count towards the feat.
If this were a court case, they’d lose. CG needs to fix this.
Just keep inflicting it on Fulcrum. She cleanses it. You reapply it.
Thank you, wonderful person. +1000000 internet points to you.
Intentional doesn't imply logical or flawless - tons of things that CG does are intentional and illogical and flawed.
I can't understand how one can give even token lip service to defending anything about this conquest.
They already messed things up so bad on its release after a lengthy delay that they are obviously just denying any further mistakes as damage control, trying to save face.
I wouldn't be as frustrated if people just owned up and stopped lying about things. Quit pretending that everything was well thought out and planned and it's all of us who are too dumb to understand. Just admit this was a dumpster fire, say it's being fixed, and move on. The continual patronizing "explanations" are the insult to injury.
So this text doesn’t mean that you apply deathmark? I just don’t understand why CG just admit it’s a bug and change it or at least change the wording to make it more clear.
Sure just like JKA doesn’t kill anyone it’s his lightsaber, or Jango never kills anyone it’s his rocket or the blast from his gun.
Sometimes it’s just better to admit you made a mistake and correct it.
I'm not defending it but you have to press a button to use JKA's lightsaber, it's not the same thing.