So obviously I haven’t been in yet to suggest this but I wanted to make a suggestion.

 

I assume (since I haven’t done it yet) that the challengee partner leader, we he gets the challenge, can see all the details like mode and map. But if the challengee doesn’t like the say the chosen map would (s)he have to decline the challenge and then issue a challenge back, or could there be a way to immediately (from the challenge received window) counter with a new selection of say a new map selection.

 

Ie I get a challenge for 8v8 on civil war, but I don’t like civil war, but instead I want to change the map to Voidstar. I click a button in the window to change the map and I click accept. The window pops back over to the challenger with the updated selection.

 

Is this doable and acceptable in the future?

 

(Sorry for autocorrect, I’m on my phone)

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ld-Siris

Hey guys!

 

I'm super keen to test this out! If any of you are available to test this out on Friday 2-5pm Central (Sat 6am-9am AEDT) that would be amazing! This time should reasonably suit our Euro friends too!

 

You don't have to have PvP Experience or be good at it or whatever. I don't give a **** about your skill level. I just want the numbers so we can check out UI functionality and just to generally test this system out.

 

Hope we can get a decent amount on to help test this!

I managed to scrape together 4 people and do two tests: 2v2 huttball and Lost Shipyards GSF Domination game.

 

GSF we just tested if we could get in, the huttball we did a 6-0 speed game to see how it would go. I can report that while we got no XP/Valor rewards, and MVP votes did not accumulate, the warzone did count towards the PVP missions completion.

 

This is not a concern for unranked given that the rewards are frankly meh, but still a thing to note. Would be interesting to know if this also counts for conuest.

 

two of my group members reported getting +500 affection with Pierce.

 

Regardless, I'll be there tomorrow unless something happens.

Edited October 26, 2018 by NikSunrider

I managed to scrape together 4 people and do two tests: 2v2 huttball and Lost Shipyards GSF Domination game.

 

GSF we just tested if we could get in, the huttball we did a 6-0 speed game to see how it would go. I can report that while we got no XP/Valor rewards, and MVP votes did not accumulate, the warzone did count towards the PVP missions completion.

 

This is not a concern for unranked given that the rewards are frankly meh, but still a thing to note. Would be interesting to know if this also counts for conuest.

 

two of my group members reported getting +500 affection with Pierce.

 

Regardless, I'll be there tomorrow unless something happens.

 

I was talking about the possibility of using this for conquest matches/points with my guildies last night. We're hoping these challenge matches count for conquest/pvp matches.

I was talking about the possibility of using this for conquest matches/points with my guildies last night. We're hoping these challenge matches count for conquest/pvp matches.

 

I hope they wont. that would be another thing "tradeable" instead of actual playing the mode. conquest guilds would just go 8vs8 and end the game in under 1 minute to just farm conquest points.

I do not think both challenger and challenged should have to be in a group. I would like to be able to do things like 1v4 GSF with my guild for instructional reasons.

I do not think both challenger and challenged should have to be in a group. I would like to be able to do things like 1v4 GSF with my guild for instructional reasons.

 

I intend to do 2v2 (or whatever's necessary) games for instructional purposes, but I will not object to 1v1 or 1vx either. i have thought GSF duels would be nice, especially for learning new ships, and that way you only rely on one person, not on 3 others who might have their own things to do.

Question for the people who tested this already (or the devs of course):

Does the stuff you do in this custom warzones count for achievements? (f. e. solo-kills/killing blows/whatever)

I guess that would be a nice way to farm some of these ridiculous pvp achievements, without bothering some random pvp'ers in your group.

I was actually looking at the fact that one of the guild perks, specifically Warzone Exploiter specifies "Rep" although I believe it a typo to be valor. Is that correct?

 

Still, the idea of being able to get some (even if it is slower) reputation for Warzones might offset the outcry of hardcore PVPers who never do PVE what-so-ever. Maybe consider doing a daily pvp mission of a specific warzone and have specific objectives based requirements to complete? For instance defend or cap a node 5 times in civil war. It could help offset the problem with number farming and return people back to do objectives. Make people have to actually try to win games vs just press buttons and have their friends pat them on the back. Another could be pass the Huttball in Quesh, etc.

 

This could also be an opportunity for some people who finish their dailies on their few characters (vs those of us that have legendary and will max out the weekly fast) to do something when they run out of alts to obtain reputation on. Provided the Warzone Missions give a different reputation pack maybe with significantly less reputation, Warzone exploiter could still give bonus to reputation as written.

 

It would also be nice to give people a reason to be in the pvp instances. Like Iokath I foresee a lot of people just porting into the PVE instance to do the world boss and other things because they don't want to pvp for resources or they lose a 1v1. Consider keeping the world boss in the pvp instances only? I know there might be some issues with that, but some games where you have to pvp to pve in the past had amazing concepts behind them. Maybe just lock people out once the boss is engaged. So they either coordinate to get their entire ops into the area and fight their way in or they lose and the other group gets the boss. The only downside is often these things are won by respawning and running back. It also seems like a good idea to keep stealth sins/shadows from just taunting the boss and resetting him indefinitely too.