Conquest Change - intentional?

"Captain_Drogan;c-2443351" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2443347" wrote:

"Captain_Drogan;c-2443338" wrote:

"CrispyFett;c-2443321" wrote:

"Captain_Drogan;c-2443318" wrote:

"Lumiya;c-2443291" wrote:

"Captain_Drogan;c-2443214" wrote:
It's day 5, I am onto sector 4 and am well on my way to gold box after unlocking Malicos.... I am not sure what the ongoing issue is... Other than I think we should have been given some "inconvenience crystals"

The ongoing issue is that CG silently moved the goalposts and if they continue to do so in the future, it is bleak. Scuba and others already explained this perfectly.

Just because you don't see it that way because it is easy for you (after they dialed the difficulty back and unlocking the new character) it does not change the underlying implications or the problems it can cause if CG will do this again , which they probably will, maybe just not that much at once, which is why people still talk about it. They want to be heard and let CG know what they think about it, if CG plans on doing so again in the future in the hopes this shows CG, that they would not like this change. This way they also can make sure that noone later can claim that the players were already aware it might be done again and they didn't say anything.

Also, you see how often people need to use words such as "might", "maybe", "possibly/possible", "if" "likely" etc? Why is that? Because at this point nobody knows if it was intentional or not because there is no communication from CG about this (was it a bug or intentional) therefor players feel left in the dark and feel a level of uncertainty how CG is planning to proceed and how it will impact the players and the game in the future. All valid reasons to try and voice their opinions and maybe get informations from CG.

Did they "silently move the goalposts" though? Other than the boss and mini boss in sector one I saw very few complaints other than the usual gripes about how the feats are hard to obtain (which is business as usual for a new conquest cycle).

It is entirely possible that they forgot to dial down the difficulty when they copied the Gammorean Guards and Rancor over from the raid and, as such, adjusted it and sent out a make good package after player complaints were heard.

Sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.

the disc nodes were also more difficult, with BB having visibly higher speeds. how does your theory account for that?

I saw very few complaints about that and, personally, I sailed right through it multiple times and even cheesed a bunch of feats on it.

Confirmation bias runs deep here on the SWGOH forums.

They admitted they toned down the difficulty on the treasure nodes. The only bias here is yours. You spout your opinions and assumptions as if they are facts. They are not. The fact that you "sailed" through it is meaningless. Players (like me and others) used the same teams with the same data discs and same stamina (100%) as prior conquest on the same node against the same team where we went 1st previously, and instead BB went first this conquest. Their speed was demonstrably increased this conquest.

Easy there big chutes....

Things change every conquest, some become more difficult and some stay the same or get easier. Why does the fact that "you and others" had difficulty mean more than the fact that I sailed through it multiple times?

I'm glad they made it easier for folks that were having difficulties, enjoy!

You still aren't understanding. I never said it was more "difficult" for me, contrary to you who said you "sailed" through it. The ease which any particular player can beat a specific team is relative. I said that the BB team was taking the first turn in this conquest as opposed to the last conquest, when many of the other known variables stayed the same, leading me to believe that their speed had been increased, which was supported by the fact that CG "toned" down the difficulty on the nodes. I and some other players simply want an official explanation from CG on this, I'm not sure why that is so controversial.