Conquest hard mode

"MasterSeedy;c-2239071" wrote:

The counting towards feats in a loss/draw can't be a planned interaction. I just used it to my advantage by using my jkr to continuously mark zombie until it times out. I get about 6-7 marks that count towards the feat and my characters lose no stamina for the draw so I just do it again. you are actually worse off for winning.

Since the energy cost is the same, you don't actually gain an advantage. you just have to space these attempts 5 hours apart. And that's fine, since no one is actually losing and replaying a battle that they could win the first time they face it. They're going back and spending energy later when the teams that they want to use for forward progress are down stamina, but they still have energy to spend.

So what you gain is not an in-game advantage. What you gain is player convenience.

If I was a game designer and I had realized that i'd made a mistake that gave away no in-game advantage, but did result in player convenience, I would sure as heck leave the game the way it was. Revan is just a subroutine. Unless you believe Tron was a documentary, Revan doesn't care if he wins or loses and making Revan happy or sad won't change the amount SWGOH is played nor affect CG's revenue in any way.

What will make a difference in CG's revenue is if players like your game, and making the game convenient to play is definitely going to make it more likable for your players. If you can make it more likable without giving away rewards that are meant to be scarce by providing an in-game advantage? So much the better.

In my opinion CG should change their expectations rather than their code. The feat is fine as is.

If there's any problem at all, it would be early on in Normal mode. In that case, simply don't assign such progress feats until after they beat Sector 2/Normal so that players can't earn a higher reward box without first proving that they can earn any rewards at all. That can be done by specifying "win X battles with only Jedi" (or other faction). That's probably trivial in Normal for the people who will go on to beat Sector 5, but for people starting out that won't even reach Sector 5/Normal and may not even reach Sector 3, you know, the people who have a chance to fall short of even the easiest prize box, those people might have a couple good teams, but they won't have a good squad in every faction.

If you do it that way, then you can't have people loading up on the "empty calories" of progress feats that you can accomplish through losses to get their first prize box, but for people who are already going to get prize boxes and could easily accomplish the feat anyway, you make it more convenient by not forcing those fights to be spaced out by 5 hours.

I mean, seriously, isn't that the whole point of not losing stamina in a loss? To make trying multiple times more convenient for the player? Why not let player convenience matter when it comes to progress feats?

You can say its just a convenience thing but I prefer to say advantage. What you can't deny is that you are worse off by winning. By winning, it means that you waste stamina and have less time in battle to keep marking characters therefore it will take you more battles to achieve the feats. The fact that it's better to just time out is not a good interaction in my opinion.