Conquest - Just Can't Anymore... :(
I loved Conquest so much when it first came out. It felt like it really could live up to the promise of giving a use to the huge collections of toons that so many of us have cultivated (I have 10M+ G...
Forum Discussion
Let's assume, for a moment, that CG is happy with the number of battles required to achieve Gold and Red crates. Let's further assume that maintaining the amount of crystals spent on energy refreshes is an important factor to CG in balancing the costs and rewards of gaining access to conquest toons.
Now, **if** CG was never reusing old feats, **then** they would be more or less locked into the structure that they have or else forced to spend more development time crafting more feats.
But CG is reusing old feats.
Given this, they have the option of reusing a larger number of old feats. If we have a larger number of feats to accomplish, then each feat could require fewer repetitions while still ultimately requiring the same number of battles to achieve a particular crate.
Imagine instead of one global feat that requires winning 40 battles with X squad/faction, you instead had two global feats, one to win 28 battles with one squad/faction and another requiring 14 victories with a different squad/faction. The total number of battles appears to increase, though with the ability to use 2 different teams you might find a couple more battles per conquest that allow you to progress through the sector and through your feat at the same time. If the 28 battle feat rewards 10 points and the 14 battle feat rewards 5 points, you're spending the same number of crystals to do the same number of battles, but with dramatically less monotony.
We complain about the monotony every conquest, but I think that if we want a better game it's incumbent upon us to suggest solutions to these problems.
I'm also happier to do a large number of battles related to a specific feat if the battles themselves are not always the same.
Imagine, for example, that we have a 40-battle required feat that delivers only 8 feat points, but the feat requires using 40 different leaders.
They can also sell us the solution to making these easier with new zetas or Omicrons or characters that allow a unique to make a toon as effective as a leader in certain circumstances.
These don't have to be conquest-only Omicrons if crafted correctly. Imagine, for instance, a unique that only functions if all 5 toons in your squad are animals/beasts (think Wampa, though more might come later) or Neutral-aligned. Or one that boosts your squad only if all 5 are Hoth toons (Scout, Soldier, Hoth Han, ROLO, Wampa). Or one that requires 5 Imperial Troopers, none of which has a leader ability. While you could put such teams together in other game modes than Conquest, they would be unlikely to be powerful enough to get much use at all, much less change any metas.
I always liked the idea of a Conquest that tests the whole of your roster. More feats each of which is worth fewer points would be more likely to create that scenario, and at the same time there's no reason in theory that this couldn't meet CG's goals in terms of crystals spending and total battles required.
If done correctly, it might even make it harder for 4.1M gp accounts to gold or red crate by making it less possible to depend on a single GL (like JML) to grab a large number of feats.
I loathe the monotony of Conquest, but the first 3-5 days I actually have a reasonable amount of fun. I don't mind Conquest complaint threads because I think there's a lot to complain about. But let's also give them some ideas for how to make things better without compromising what is important to CG. I may be wrong about what is important to them when I suggest crystal spending on Conquest energy refreshes, but I might be right, and if we at least attempt to give CG ideas that fit within their required framework, we're more likely to get them to try out new changes.
And I, for one, would welcome some change to Conquest.
Now, **if** CG was never reusing old feats, **then** they would be more or less locked into the structure that they have or else forced to spend more development time crafting more feats.
But CG is reusing old feats.
Given this, they have the option of reusing a larger number of old feats. If we have a larger number of feats to accomplish, then each feat could require fewer repetitions while still ultimately requiring the same number of battles to achieve a particular crate.
Imagine instead of one global feat that requires winning 40 battles with X squad/faction, you instead had two global feats, one to win 28 battles with one squad/faction and another requiring 14 victories with a different squad/faction. The total number of battles appears to increase, though with the ability to use 2 different teams you might find a couple more battles per conquest that allow you to progress through the sector and through your feat at the same time. If the 28 battle feat rewards 10 points and the 14 battle feat rewards 5 points, you're spending the same number of crystals to do the same number of battles, but with dramatically less monotony.
We complain about the monotony every conquest, but I think that if we want a better game it's incumbent upon us to suggest solutions to these problems.
I'm also happier to do a large number of battles related to a specific feat if the battles themselves are not always the same.
Imagine, for example, that we have a 40-battle required feat that delivers only 8 feat points, but the feat requires using 40 different leaders.
They can also sell us the solution to making these easier with new zetas or Omicrons or characters that allow a unique to make a toon as effective as a leader in certain circumstances.
These don't have to be conquest-only Omicrons if crafted correctly. Imagine, for instance, a unique that only functions if all 5 toons in your squad are animals/beasts (think Wampa, though more might come later) or Neutral-aligned. Or one that boosts your squad only if all 5 are Hoth toons (Scout, Soldier, Hoth Han, ROLO, Wampa). Or one that requires 5 Imperial Troopers, none of which has a leader ability. While you could put such teams together in other game modes than Conquest, they would be unlikely to be powerful enough to get much use at all, much less change any metas.
I always liked the idea of a Conquest that tests the whole of your roster. More feats each of which is worth fewer points would be more likely to create that scenario, and at the same time there's no reason in theory that this couldn't meet CG's goals in terms of crystals spending and total battles required.
If done correctly, it might even make it harder for 4.1M gp accounts to gold or red crate by making it less possible to depend on a single GL (like JML) to grab a large number of feats.
I loathe the monotony of Conquest, but the first 3-5 days I actually have a reasonable amount of fun. I don't mind Conquest complaint threads because I think there's a lot to complain about. But let's also give them some ideas for how to make things better without compromising what is important to CG. I may be wrong about what is important to them when I suggest crystal spending on Conquest energy refreshes, but I might be right, and if we at least attempt to give CG ideas that fit within their required framework, we're more likely to get them to try out new changes.
And I, for one, would welcome some change to Conquest.
