Some of the Conquest changes announced today really miss the mark for me.More energy per battle? Am I to assume that means I can't complete Conquest without refreshing energy now? How many refreshes? How many crystals is it going to cost for max prize now?Their stated issue was that folks were rushing to complete the mode and then disengaging. That's happening because the mode isn't fun. If you want folks to continue to engage, after max crate is achieved, remove the energy cost and make swapping disks free. Add some feats that reward portraits or titles rather than currency. Then we might goof around in the mode in our spare time. Instead, those that were impatient will likely just pay the extra crystal cost to get the grind over early, and then they'll disengage like they did before.Data Disks swaps cost energy now. I mean... that's probably better. But they also just made energy more valuable. They claim they need to make swaps cost something to make it "meaningful". That's just not true. The risk of losing a battle because of a poor disk loadout makes the swaps "meaningful". Adding a swap tax just makes the game mode stale.The cost of the disk swaps, and thus the reluctance of many to make changes, coupled with obnoxious feats is what makes this game mode so dull and lacking in engagement. I doubt either of these changes will change that.Rant over.Really excited for simmable HSR and ABs.https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/248444/conquest-7-begins-august-30th#latest - to add link

So the devs say people were finishing conquest in 2 days and they rather want people to take longer."Instead of increasing the difficulty of the encounters, nodes will now cost more energy to battle and there is a bigger focus on completing a variety of new Feats."So now those people that don't want to specifically spend to refresh energy will now have more dead time between battles.What happened to the option of simply limiting how many refreshes you can do (to like 1 a day) ... I guess that makes less money.

Reading the update notes got me worried because of this line: "nodes will now cost more energy to battle"In the previous conquests, it was possible to get the max crate without having to by any energy refreshes. Will it still be doable now? It would be annoying if the people spending on energy refreshes and rushing through the conquest pushed you guys to make a change penalizing those of us who played it though the whole two weeks at a slower pace.

In today's post concerning the Conquest beginning August 30th, it was said that to tackle to problem of people completing it too quickly, nodes will cost more energy.The big problem I have with that is that I focus on efficiency and not wasting crystals. I completed conquest 6 hard mode without a single energy refresh. If the nodes are going to cost more then it is going to force me to waste crystals just to complete the conquest now? That is not cool and does not reward skilled players who tackle the challenges of conquest in an strategic manner.

Not gonna rant too hard, but I dont get this:"...we found that most players could rush through the event in the first few days and then went back to clean up a few feats afterwards. That was the extent of their engagement for the entire 2 weeks and there was little reason to continue playing this mode."how on earth do you not formulate something very similar about the Challenges? Event is 3 days long, you rush the highest chapter you can in 4 minutes, then you return to finish the feats, then gg. Conquest had a near-perfect time schedulment compared to the challenges....

More energy pr battle also mean that without refresh, we will have fewer battles pr day, and thus toons will recover more stamina between each battle = less incentive to have a broad roster as you can more heavily lean into fewer teams. Fewer battles pr day would also mean less time spent in conquest, but they stated that with the increased time commitment, they will reduce time elsewhere (and thank you for that), but to me all this indicates that CG expect players to have to spend crystals with the changes.Tinfoil hat warning, but I can only see the increased energy cost as a crystal grab. Seems CG saw too many players not spending crystals/not spending enough crystals on refresh and decided to make refresh mandatory. I mean, if it was truly a matter of stretching out conquest, wouldn't lower stamina regen/higher stamina cost be more natural to look at? Then you would need to use more teams and you would need to buy more consumables to rush conquest....

Conquest Changes [MERGE] | EA Forums

ZeusZA360
4 years ago
So the devs say people were finishing conquest in 2 days and they rather want people to take longer.

"Instead of increasing the difficulty of the encounters, nodes will now cost more energy to battle and there is a bigger focus on completing a variety of new Feats."

So now those people that don't want to specifically spend to refresh energy will now have more dead time between battles.

What happened to the option of simply limiting how many refreshes you can do (to like 1 a day) ... I guess that makes less money.
eloibg
4 years ago
Reading the update notes got me worried because of this line: "nodes will now cost more energy to battle"

In the previous conquests, it was possible to get the max crate without having to by any energy refreshes. Will it still be doable now? It would be annoying if the people spending on energy refreshes and rushing through the conquest pushed you guys to make a change penalizing those of us who played it though the whole two weeks at a slower pace.
gr1mdr4g0n
4 years ago
In today's post concerning the Conquest beginning August 30th, it was said that to tackle to problem of people completing it too quickly, nodes will cost more energy.

The big problem I have with that is that I focus on efficiency and not wasting crystals. I completed conquest 6 hard mode without a single energy refresh. If the nodes are going to cost more then it is going to force me to waste crystals just to complete the conquest now? That is not cool and does not reward skilled players who tackle the challenges of conquest in an strategic manner.
SerWulfgar
4 years ago
Not gonna rant too hard, but I dont get this:

"...we found that most players could rush through the event in the first few days and then went back to clean up a few feats afterwards. That was the extent of their engagement for the entire 2 weeks and there was little reason to continue playing this mode."

how on earth do you not formulate something very similar about the Challenges? Event is 3 days long, you rush the highest chapter you can in 4 minutes, then you return to finish the feats, then gg. Conquest had a near-perfect time schedulment compared to the challenges....
Morgoth_swgoh
Rising Novice
4 years ago
More energy pr battle also mean that without refresh, we will have fewer battles pr day, and thus toons will recover more stamina between each battle = less incentive to have a broad roster as you can more heavily lean into fewer teams. Fewer battles pr day would also mean less time spent in conquest, but they stated that with the increased time commitment, they will reduce time elsewhere (and thank you for that), but to me all this indicates that CG expect players to have to spend crystals with the changes.
Tinfoil hat warning, but I can only see the increased energy cost as a crystal grab. Seems CG saw too many players not spending crystals/not spending enough crystals on refresh and decided to make refresh mandatory. I mean, if it was truly a matter of stretching out conquest, wouldn't lower stamina regen/higher stamina cost be more natural to look at? Then you would need to use more teams and you would need to buy more consumables to rush conquest....
dpw622
New Spectator
4 years ago
I didn't see it talked about so I'm going to ask the question. Where are ship battles at :)
DarthKatk
4 years ago
Conquest wasn't fun before and now they made it even worse. Great stuff.
Magruffin
Rising Traveler
4 years ago
So you throw us a bone by changing the cost to change data discs into energy, but then jack up the energy costs we need to battle.....
Are you guys even capable of doing a nice gesture anymore without having to make something worse....
NyKynoe
4 years ago
"Morgoth01;c-2290409" wrote:
More energy pr battle also mean that without refresh, we will have fewer battles pr day, and thus toons will recover more stamina between each battle = less incentive to have a broad roster as you can more heavily lean into fewer teams. Fewer battles pr day would also mean less time spent in conquest, but they stated that with the increased time commitment, they will reduce time elsewhere (and thank you for that), but to me all this indicates that CG expect players to have to spend crystals with the changes.
....

This will likely mean more feats, so while you say less battles and relying more on fewer teams, what is more likely to happen is you will need more teams just to do feats and the smaller your roster, the more refreshes (energy and stamina) will be needed to get the new feats.

That is my take on the more time commitment needed.
SerWulfgar
4 years ago
Okay, I am going to rant about this one: did you really apply changes to kits during an attacking phase of a GAC?!