Change in TB operations

"iMalevolence;c-2451767" wrote:

It's just a bad change overall. Again, I'm just asking that they put more thought into who they choose for these replacement characters when the players are not at fault for a mistake the devs originally made.

I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's a very positive change. Inquisitors are useful in lots of dark side missions, and the Reva mission. Someone like Chieftain is pretty much useless in RotE from what I've seen, but has uses outside of TB - so I feel like they actually did put some thought into who they chose. They could easily have chosen Ugnaught or CUP or Acolyte or someone that's useless everywhere. Or they could have chosen a GL or a key character from any number of commonly used teams for combat missions which would be arguably worse. At least whoever ends up taking TC to R7 can actually use them for something - and it doesn't interfere with any other teams for RotE.

You're of course entitled to your take - and I respect that you don't see it from where I'm sitting - but I do think it's a positive change in the end and I think TC is a better option than most.

My biggest thought/concern about this swap is: "why now?" When ROTE first started, people pointed out that 5B was needed for platoons on a planet they needed him for the Reva mission. CG acknowledged it was correct and did nothing about it...which I didn't love, but I kind of understood they wanted people to really stretch themselves and their rosters to succeed in ROTE. But what made them change their minds now?

Did they get an influx of hate mail? Did a developer finally wear down a decision maker to let him change it? Is there something else coming up that they want to set this precedent? They knew what was in their operations from jump street.

I understand the stress behind it, but if your guild is capable of 6/6 on Tatooine, then your guild is more than capable to r7 one character between now and next Wednesday.

It's not like they're replacing the character with Paz or Krang.

"OmegaIV;c-2451812" wrote:
I understand the stress behind it, but if your guild is capable of 6/6 on Tatooine, then your guild is more than capable to r7 one character between now and next Wednesday.

It's not like they're replacing the character with Paz or Krang.

lol, no. Worst case scenario is that you're asking someone in a guild to farm 330 shards of a non accelerated character on a hard node. If no one in the guild had already started working on Chieftain, it'd be 50 days doing 20 sims/day on that node.

Even going from 6* to 7* with 20 sims/day, it's still 15 days and puts it outside of this upcoming TB. And refreshing a node for 20 sims/day is an unreasonable ask.

"iMalevolence;c-2451814" wrote:

"OmegaIV;c-2451812" wrote:
I understand the stress behind it, but if your guild is capable of 6/6 on Tatooine, then your guild is more than capable to r7 one character between now and next Wednesday.

It's not like they're replacing the character with Paz or Krang.

lol, no. Worst case scenario is that you're asking someone in a guild to farm 330 shards of a non accelerated character on a hard node. If no one in the guild had already started working on Chieftain, it'd be 50 days doing 20 sims/day on that node.

Even going from 6* to 7* with 20 sims/day, it's still 15 days and puts it outside of this upcoming TB. And refreshing a node for 20 sims/day is an unreasonable ask.

Is that really happening? Are there guilds out there that are filling 6/6 platoons (or just that one platoon) on Tatooine with 0 7* Tusken Chieftains? According to swgoh.gg there are over 44000 7* Chieftains in the game. By any objective standard, my guild is pretty casual and all around average for our size. We're 440m GP and last RotE we got 26* and 0 platoons on the phase 3 planets. We have 13 Chieftains at 7* and one of them over G13.

If the scenario you're describing is in fact happening, I seriously doubt that it's not an extreme edge case.

It doesn't matter if that would be the extreme edge case. It's a case that CG needs to consider when making a change like this. They need to do better about not invalidating player progress. Full stop.

44,000 chieftains could, theoretically, be concentrated in the top 900 guilds (and realistically, they're more likely to be found up here), which would be guilds over 430m gp.

ROTE is accessible to guilds at 200m gp. If we ignore guilds in the 200m-300m range (for which they'd likely have problems completing proving grounds operation characters, which is also a problem), and only look at guilds between 300m and 430m, that's 2,150 guilds. Significantly more than the number of top guilds where those chieftains are more likely to be concentrated.

"iMalevolence;c-2451826" wrote:
It doesn't matter if that would be the extreme edge case. It's a case that CG needs to consider when making a change like this. They need to do better about not invalidating player progress. Full stop.

44,000 chieftains could, theoretically, be concentrated in the top 900 guilds (and realistically, they're more likely to be found up here), which would be guilds over 430m gp.

ROTE is accessible to guilds at 200m gp. If we ignore guilds in the 200m-300m range (for which they'd likely have problems completing proving grounds operation characters, which is also a problem), and only look at guilds between 300m and 430m, that's 2,150 guilds. Significantly more than the number of top guilds where those chieftains are more likely to be concentrated.

Of course it matters if it's an extreme edge case. CG is not going to make decisions based on the lowest 1% of guilds doing RotE, nor should they.

"StarSon;c-2451828" wrote:

"iMalevolence;c-2451826" wrote:
It doesn't matter if that would be the extreme edge case. It's a case that CG needs to consider when making a change like this. They need to do better about not invalidating player progress. Full stop.

44,000 chieftains could, theoretically, be concentrated in the top 900 guilds (and realistically, they're more likely to be found up here), which would be guilds over 430m gp.

ROTE is accessible to guilds at 200m gp. If we ignore guilds in the 200m-300m range (for which they'd likely have problems completing proving grounds operation characters, which is also a problem), and only look at guilds between 300m and 430m, that's 2,150 guilds. Significantly more than the number of top guilds where those chieftains are more likely to be concentrated.

Of course it matters if it's an extreme edge case. CG is not going to make decisions based on the lowest 1% of guilds doing RotE, nor should they.

That why are they making a change that is neutral for the top guilds and hurts the rest?

"iMalevolence;c-2451826" wrote:
It doesn't matter if that would be the extreme edge case. It's a case that CG needs to consider when making a change like this. They need to do better about not invalidating player progress. Full stop.

44,000 chieftains could, theoretically, be concentrated in the top 900 guilds (and realistically, they're more likely to be found up here), which would be guilds over 430m gp.

ROTE is accessible to guilds at 200m gp. If we ignore guilds in the 200m-300m range (for which they'd likely have problems completing proving grounds operation characters, which is also a problem), and only look at guilds between 300m and 430m, that's 2,150 guilds. Significantly more than the number of top guilds where those chieftains are more likely to be concentrated.

But... those guilds aren't filling P3 platoons. They're not being ignored - they're simply out of scope. This change doesn't affect them.

"iMalevolence;c-2451832" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2451828" wrote:

"iMalevolence;c-2451826" wrote:
It doesn't matter if that would be the extreme edge case. It's a case that CG needs to consider when making a change like this. They need to do better about not invalidating player progress. Full stop.

44,000 chieftains could, theoretically, be concentrated in the top 900 guilds (and realistically, they're more likely to be found up here), which would be guilds over 430m gp.

ROTE is accessible to guilds at 200m gp. If we ignore guilds in the 200m-300m range (for which they'd likely have problems completing proving grounds operation characters, which is also a problem), and only look at guilds between 300m and 430m, that's 2,150 guilds. Significantly more than the number of top guilds where those chieftains are more likely to be concentrated.

Of course it matters if it's an extreme edge case. CG is not going to make decisions based on the lowest 1% of guilds doing RotE, nor should they.

That why are they making a change that is neutral for the top guilds and hurts the rest?

It's not neutral for the top, and doesn't hurt "the rest." It's actually quite helpful for most guilds, because you no longer have to choose ops over missions, or preload to maximize ops because of this character.