Jump to content

Hi Charles and Keith! Any new information about conquest and 5.9?


Lhancelot

Recommended Posts

While I am gone a few things will change. Since I am the primary point of contact for all of you here on the forums, I would expect things will be quiet around here. Charles and Keith will take care of passing on any information to you.

 

-eric

 

Hello Charles and Keith! Since Eric has been gone, we have not had any news on what is happening with 5.9 or if any new changes were being considered after so much feedback was given by the players here on the forums.

 

Are there any plans to remove the heavy-handed legacy restrictions that are forcing players to have to play only one character to maximize the conquest gains? Will the value points be bumped up regarding conquests completed?

 

Prior to 5.8, players had much more flexibility and could work on conquest with alts freely which created much more activity in WZs, FPs, as well as OPs because the player was not punished by having to choose what character to gain conquest on.

 

This is just one issue with the new conquest system players have pointed out, and if you have read the feedback in the two official feedback threads created by Eric, you'd see in much more detail what concerns the players have with the new conquest system.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=946784

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=946305

 

Please let us know what is going on regarding conquest, and thank you for your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Or any plans to continue to maintain better balance with conquest than pre5.8? I understand some tweaks need to be made for point values and such, but the alt/legacy restriction is a good thing, imo. Even a pooled legacy total would be fine, with the limited, legacy restricted objectives, as long as the player needs to dedicate the points to 1 specific toons guild before they begin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think olagatonjedi is Keith's non dev handle on the forums. So basically whatever he says is how it is.

 

Perhaps he is the only sane man left, lets face it Conquest is not going to change back. Just as class balancing was done badly and remained done badly, the story was badly done and remains badly done, Companion returns were done badly and continue to be done badly, there was a complete lack of content and their remains a complete lack of content.

 

The community can either accept things how they are or hope that things will get better and only be disappointed. We have to accept how things are, I remember when we got that first Keith post saying their would be more transparent communication and the faithful cheered, how things would get better. Then after 6 months things were worse but the faithful blamed Ben and said Keith hadn't yet made his mark. After 9 months the faithful said how 2018 would be the promised land. And now in 2018 one year later we get a post saying less communication. Is there any evidence anyone cares what the players are saying on the forums or the devs care about the state of the game.

Edited by Costello
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would like something at least knowing they see what we're saying. I am not going to derail your thread by continuing an argument, Lhance, but my opinion is well explained and reasoned on nearly every page of the threads you posted.

 

Hearing anything is good. We have a virtual bet going on guild - who the next dev post will be. So far the money's on Musco... when he gets back.

Edited by KendraP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would like something at least knowing they see what we're saying. I am not going to derail your thread by continuing an argument, Lhance, but my opinion is well explained and reasoned on nearly every page of the threads you posted.

 

Hearing anything is good. We have a virtual bet going on guild - who the next dev post will be. So far the money's on Musco... when he gets back.

 

I figured why not set the table for Keith or Charles seeing Eric is AFK and we honestly have not been given any feedback to our feedback. I say "our" in a general sense, because I can honestly say I have contributed very little to all the detailed information many of you have supplied these threads with.

 

Hopefully Keith, Charles, or someone from the company officially addresses the players here on the forums with something to look forward to regarding 5.9 and changes to the present meta of conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think olagatonjedi is Keith's non dev handle on the forums. So basically whatever he says is how it is.

 

Perhaps he is the only sane man left, lets face it Conquest is not going to change back. Just as class balancing was done badly and remained done badly, the story was badly done and remains badly done, Companion returns were done badly and continue to be done badly, there was a complete lack of content and their remains a complete lack of content.

 

The community can either accept things how they are or hope that things will get better and only be disappointed. We have to accept how things are, I remember when we got that first Keith post saying their would be more transparent communication and the faithful cheered, how things would get better. Then after 6 months things were worse but the faithful blamed Ben and said Keith hadn't yet made his mark. After 9 months the faithful said how 2018 would be the promised land. And now in 2018 one year later we get a post saying less communication. Is there any evidence anyone cares what the players are saying on the forums or the devs care about the state of the game.

I'm all for positive game changing feedback, but some of the feedback and rationale I read is just mind-numbingly ego-centric, falsely represented, unsubstantiated, and inaccurate. Some may say my posts make other people feel the same way, but I'm not one of those overly advocating for anything specific where facts and logic and valid reason need to apply (not that my posts dont include that).

 

Too much individual bubble feedback calling for large scale out of bubble changes. [i.e. my guild was deeply affected, so it must mean everyone's guild was affected, so change everything!)

 

Too much over-generalization of trends (5 people post they have left, or "I heard" about 20 people leaving, so it means 1000s of people are leaving, and nobody is joining in and the game is in shambles!; or "I had trouble getting a group, so everyone must be having trouble, and nobody is running ops anymore!)

 

Too few mathematicians

 

Too many people that need an extra reason to play their alts instead of just playing their alts because they want to; or not playing them because they choose not to

 

Too many people who cant understand that people have to live with their choices, whether the outcome is good or bad (I choose to play only my favorite DPS class, but but but it's hard to get a group; vs choosing to switch to a needed class, and getting an invite immediately)

 

The list could go on and on....

Edited by olagatonjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would like something at least knowing they see what we're saying. I am not going to derail your thread by continuing an argument, Lhance, but my opinion is well explained and reasoned on nearly every page of the threads you posted.

 

Hearing anything is good. We have a virtual bet going on guild - who the next dev post will be. So far the money's on Musco... when he gets back.

They posted a 5.9 preview in response to immediate feedback. They have demonstrated that they read some feedback, and respond to it, if valid. If you're complaining about lack of communication, you might just be expecting too much or disregarding the communication they have given.

 

If there is nothing to add until 5.9 drops, why would they post?

Edited by olagatonjedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for positive game changing feedback, but some of the feedback and rationale I read is just mind-numbingly ego-centric, falsely represented, unsubstantiated, and inaccurate. Some may say my posts make other people feel the same way, but I'm not one of those overly advocating for anything specific where facts and logic and valid reason need to apply (not that my posts dont include that).

 

Too much individual bubble feedback calling for large scale out of bubble changes. [i.e. my guild was deeply affected, so it must mean everyone's guild was affected, so change everything!)

 

Too much over-generalization of trends (5 people post they have left, or "I heard" about 20 people leaving, so it means 1000s of people are leaving, and nobody is joining in and the game is in shambles!; or "I had trouble getting a group, so everyone must be having trouble, and nobody is running ops anymore!)

 

Too few mathematicians

 

Too many people that need an extra reason to play their alts instead of just playing their alts because they want to; or not playing them because they choose not to

 

Too many people who cant understand that people have to live with their choices, whether the outcome is good or bad (I choose to play only my favorite DPS class, but but but it's hard to get a group; vs choosing to switch to a needed class, and getting an invite immediately)

 

The list could go on and on....

 

No disagreement.

 

But don't expect a lot of agreement by those that feel disaffected by the current Conquests. It simply is not the nature of gamers and how they prosecute their frustrations in gaming forums. I think this is something that you either do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

Edited by Andryah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They posted a 5.9 preview in response to immediate feedback. They have demonstrated that they read some feedback, and respond to it, if valid. If you're complaining about lack of communication, you might just be expecting too much or disregarding the communication they have given.

 

If there is nothing to add until 5.9 drops, why would they post?

 

Because in my and in many others' opinions the changes they are suggesting do not go far enough to solve our problems.

 

Before GC came out everyone screamed it was a terrible idea. They pushed it anyway and there was an outcry.

 

They did not tell us the extent of what to expect in 5.8. Maybe they considered it minor, maybe they did not want to hear the outcry until it had been forced on us.

 

Whatever the case, it is my opinion that integrity and directness works better than trying to hide behind a wall and ignore the growing storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think olagatonjedi is Keith's non dev handle on the forums. So basically whatever he says is how it is.

 

First I lol'd at your comment. But after reading his second post, I think you're on to something. Keep invastigating. ;)

 

To the OP: Do you really expect that Keith - or, even more unlikely, Charles - will post here in the forum during Eric's absence unless absolutely necessary (e g. patch notes)? They have CommunityDroidEN for that, as announced by Eric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disagreement.

 

But don't expect a lot of agreement by those that feel disaffected by the current Conquests. It simply is not the nature of gamers and how they prosecute their frustrations in gaming forums. I think this is something that you either do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

I understand it, but refuse to give up. Perhaps it's in my nature, for good or bad. When its starts affecting me down deeper, perhaps I will decide it's enough. I know when it's time to walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I lol'd at your comment. But after reading his second post, I think you're on to something. Keep invastigating. ;)

 

To the OP: Do you really expect that Keith - or, even more unlikely, Charles - will post here in the forum during Eric's absence unless absolutely necessary (e g. patch notes)? They have CommunityDroidEN for that, as announced by Eric.

 

I believe the lack of expectation is what motivated his post - the debate continues elsewhere. Here is an opportunity for them to post, without worrying about the incredible levels of unhappiness it feels like they are choosing to hide from.

 

That is why (despite my nature) I am not continuing a certain debate here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because in my and in many others' opinions the changes they are suggesting do not go far enough to solve our problems.

Your post describes one of the main problems. No matter what the changes are, you haven't given it a chance, nor does it sound like you will give it a chance when it goes live. You have already made up your mind, and therefore your feedback invalidates itself.

 

Before GC came out everyone screamed it was a terrible idea. They pushed it anyway and there was an outcry.

There was a lot of push FOR that system to be put in place. In fact, I recall making a post in the suggestion box for level sync and for a loot system similar to GC. Unless they took 1 persons advice and ran with it, I'd say it received a lot of support and made sense in the long-play, which it does (assuming people can adapt and accept).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because in my and in many others' opinions the changes they are suggesting do not go far enough to solve our problems.

 

Before GC came out everyone screamed it was a terrible idea. They pushed it anyway and there was an outcry.

They did not tell us the extent of what to expect in 5.8. Maybe they considered it minor, maybe they did not want to hear the outcry until it had been forced on us.

 

Whatever the case, it is my opinion that integrity and directness works better than trying to hide behind a wall and ignore the growing storm.

 

We do not know the extent of the changes to come, nor do I think at this stage the studio knows the "full extent" of changes either. It should be pretty clear by now.. that this studio does multiple incremental course corrections when content goes afoul of the players. Anyone that does not understand that this studio works on the principle of careful controlled incremental adjustments to the knobs on things in game is simply not being realistic. You can be angry about the approach, but you cannot deny it, nor demand it be different.

 

Actually... many players were neutral to the idea of GC pre-deployment. It was the really bad aspects of how they released it, and how far it fell short in most peoples eyes compared to what they said it would be that was the major fire in the playerbase. And yes.. they were quite slow to make changes to bring it to a somewhat reasonable state many months later. I don't agree with how they did GC and slow walked adjustments... but your statement is categorically untrue in the context of the broader player base. But I accept that it represents your personal and very jaded view about GC.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as are all of us. But your opinion does not automatically make you right, beyond your own personal view on a topic.

Edited by Andryah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it, but refuse to give up. Perhaps it's in my nature, for good or bad. When its starts affecting me down deeper, perhaps I will decide it's enough. I know when it's time to walk away.

 

Fair enough.

 

But what exactly do you think you will achieve in keeping on keeping on? You won't change minds. Best you can hope for (and the exact reason why I sometimes choose to chime in) is to provide some good contrasting perspective for other readers, particularly lurkers who are not actively engaged in the back and forth forum warfare.

 

Note: if you poke the bear, be prepared to get bitten, maybe even ravaged. :)

Edited by Andryah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Snip*

 

Is there any evidence anyone cares what the players are saying on the forums or the devs care about the state of the game.

 

No, or at least none that I have seen.

Edited by Exly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best you can hope for (and the exact reason why I sometimes choose to chime in) is to provide some good contrasting perspective for other readers, particularly lurkers who are not actively engaged in the back and forth forum warfare.

This has happened, so it reinforces my posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post describes one of the main problems. No matter what the changes are, you haven't given it a chance, nor does it sound like you will give it a chance when it goes live. You have already made up your mind, and therefore your feedback invalidates itself.

I have played the new conquest every week it has been out. I have said there were ideas i thought were good (like the planet split) that felt poorly executed.

 

At this point, seeing the anticipated changes and knowing how long it took to fix GC (and seeing my guild collapsing on itself), I have decided the new conquest is bad. I have played it as much or more than anyone here, so I do not see how that is not "giving it a chance "

There was a lot of push FOR that system to be put in place. In fact, I recall making a post in the suggestion box for level sync and for a loot system similar to GC. Unless they took 1 persons advice and ran with it, I'd say it received a lot of support and made sense in the long-play, which it does (assuming people can adapt and accept).

 

We remember things differently... I remember reading many posts about how bad random gearing and removing ops drops would be; once it finally came out, they were eventually forced to (what felt begrudgingly) put drops back in to make the system tolerable.

 

Through this process people left. Losing patience and the will to continue, as evidenced by the necessity of mergers. If they have a lack of resources, at least part of it could be because, as Lhance says, communication feels few and far between.

 

We do not know the extent of the changes to come, nor do I think at this stage the studio knows the "full extent" of changes either. It should be pretty clear by now.. that this studio does multiple incremental course corrections when content goes afoul of the players. Anyone that does not understand that this studio works on the principle of careful controlled incremental adjustments to the knobs on things in game is simply not being realistic. You can be angry about the approach, but you cannot deny it, nor demand it be different.

The fact of the matter is: they have failed utterly at communicating their vision with us. No one anticipated what sweeping changes would be made. The ideas they presented were the ones they knew everyone would like. In my opinion they left out the unsavory details that would result in an uproar on the levels of GC, thereby delaying the inevitable.

 

Nothing about the new system was an incremental adjusting. Now that they have thoroughly pissed off the fanbase they begin begrudgingly incrementally adjusting. Just like with GC.

 

Actually... many players were neutral to the idea of GC pre-deployment. It was the really bad aspects of how they released it, and how far it fell short in most peoples eyes compared to what they said it would be that was the major fire in the playerbase. And yes.. they were quite slow to make changes to bring it to a somewhat reasonable state many months later. I don't agree with how they did GC and slow walked adjustments... but your statement is categorically untrue in the context of the broader player base. But I accept that it represents your personal and very jaded view about GC.

 

I need to go back and find the announcement thread. I remember many complaints of RNG, requests for drop rates, questions about potentially swapping a piece you don't need for one you do, etc.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as are all of us. But your opinion does not automatically make you right, beyond your own personal view on a topic.

 

I am not saying I am necessarily right, I like you or anyone else am merely stating my opinion. Because it is a very strong opinion based on reason I believe much of it to be right. But points are debatable and are being debated at length in the other thread.

 

Here i wish to focus on what Lhance is getting at - appease us in a very simple way. Many of us have the same concerns and there are literal hundreds of pages of info. At least acknowledge our existence more than once a week.

Edited by KendraP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disagreement.

 

But don't expect a lot of agreement by those that feel disaffected by the current Conquests. It simply is not the nature of gamers and how they prosecute their frustrations in gaming forums. I think this is something that you either do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

 

This is a bit unfair IMO (and maybe I misunderstand the nuance). Even assuming all the feedback is hyperbolic, and ego-centric (which I don't believe to be true for the vast majority), the issue here is that an imperfect system was changed to an objectively worse system with no clear upside to anyone. And the longer that goes under- (or un-) acknowledged by the devs, the louder and more hyperbolic the feedback gets. But it's totally reasonable to say "put things back the way they were" or "tell us why we're wrong and you're right about this new system". Simply continuing to repeat the broken record of "just learn to adapt" is the only thing I think is unreasonable here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit unfair IMO (and maybe I misunderstand the nuance). Even assuming all the feedback is hyperbolic, and ego-centric (which I don't believe to be true for the vast majority), the issue here is that an imperfect system was changed to an objectively worse system with no clear upside to anyone. And the longer that goes under- (or un-) acknowledged by the devs, the louder and more hyperbolic the feedback gets. But it's totally reasonable to say "put things back the way they were" or "tell us why we're wrong and you're right about this new system". Simply continuing to repeat the broken record of "just learn to adapt" is the only thing I think is unreasonable here...

 

Hear hear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit unfair IMO (and maybe I misunderstand the nuance). Even assuming all the feedback is hyperbolic, and ego-centric (which I don't believe to be true for the vast majority), the issue here is that an imperfect system was changed to an objectively worse system with no clear upside to anyone. And the longer that goes under- (or un-) acknowledged by the devs, the louder and more hyperbolic the feedback gets. But it's totally reasonable to say "put things back the way they were" or "tell us why we're wrong and you're right about this new system". Simply continuing to repeat the broken record of "just learn to adapt" is the only thing I think is unreasonable here...

Except the data proves otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the data proves otherwise

 

What data? The only numbers i have seen explicity laid out are from myself and even I said they were statistically insignificant.

 

And besides which this is supposed to be a request for transparency. Can we focus?

Edited by KendraP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not know the extent of the changes to come, nor do I think at this stage the studio knows the "full extent" of changes either. It should be pretty clear by now.. that this studio does multiple incremental course corrections when content goes afoul of the players. Anyone that does not understand that this studio works on the principle of careful controlled incremental adjustments to the knobs on things in game is simply not being realistic. You can be angry about the approach, but you cannot deny it, nor demand it be different.

 

If their approach to change is multiple incremental course corrections, why did they nuke conquest from orbit to begin with? The two approaches really don't jibe with each other. Their stated goals only warranted the little tweaks you are talking about, but they burned it to the ground and are now very slowly building it back up. The policy of breaking things big and fast yet fixing things small and slow is detrimental to the game. Do they really feel like this game is so healthy right now that they can sacrifice players to someones pet vanity project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What data? The only numbers i have seen explicity laid out are from myself and even I said they were statistically insignificant.

 

And besides which this is supposed to be a request for transparency. Can we focus?

I've posted data. And you should be telling s lot of other people to focus, if you're gonna take that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...