Conquest hard mode

"UrbanNomad;c-2237338" wrote:

Wait. How do we know what the hard mode rewards are?

You can enter Hard Mode and look at the rewards.
Just don't press "Commit" ;)

I'm trying hard, GP of 4.4 million, no GL's, I'm expecting to get crate 2 or 3, but we'll see

Sector 1 complete. Finally grabbed a decent data disk with the post-Traya node. Everything before that was 1-2 dot weak ones like "4% offense stacking".

Meanwhile guild mates are grabbing the Leaders Resolve on the first available nodes. One already has a purple.

Arrived at one of the data disk nodes.

All three are the same, what the heck CG?

Okay, I was completely not expecting GB:Conquest to run again so soon. Wasn't it supposed to be 1x/month?

Anyway, after i learned from this thread that it was happening I went in and did 9 battles with 9 different squads to blow through the overabundance of energy. Now I never have to worry about using more than 2-3 teams again if I want to keep things full stamina the whole time. While there is a roster depth test in Conquest, it's not as bad as I feared it might be before the event was released.

So with 9 battles down in S1, I can definitively say that these battles aren't causing me any more difficulty than the battles in S5/Normal. Yes, I'm without data disks, but it doesn't really seem to matter. The most important thing is that I'm fast enough to go first, and that's something I can consistently do (I've already chosen 2x speed/evasion data disks). Now that I'm through the first burst where using a bunch of different teams is important so that they can all recover in 5 hours, I'm expecting to win consistently for a while. If this is S1, then S2 shouldn't be any problem either. I mean these battles aren't close in any way. But since I don't know yet how difficulty scales, I'm not sure if it's S3 or S4 where I'll start to run into problems. The boss battles can also be tricky, of course, but Traya shouldn't pose a problem. JML was more of a problem than I expect Traya to be at the same relic level, for a number of reasons, but not least because I've had lots of practice over a long time vs. Traya & I don't have nearly as much experience fighting JML.

One thing that is striking me as wrong is this: The sector has a feat "Win 20 battles without losing any units."

There aren't 20 battles. There aren't even 15. It's one thing to ask for perfection. It's another to ask us to replay perfect battles again to prove that we can get them perfect. I mean, what really is the point?

This isn't just a math error, though. And it's not just a way to make sure we run short of energy at the end of the event by causing us to spend extra energy per Sector. This is an example of CG failing to understand what is fun. If you required a number of perfect battles = the number of battles in the sector, fine. You only need to refight the ones you couldn't 3-star the first time. But if you 3 star every battle and still have to go back and fight them again? IN what world does that sound fun to anyone?

Whatever you were aiming for, CG, this isn't it. Require the bonus feat to get 3-stars on every single battle, including the Boss fight and some people will have to replay some battles, but only the ones in which they lost toons the first time. In that case people will be trying to improve. They won't be merely repeating what they already know they can do so a counter can tick 1 more pip towards feat completion. The way it's set up you don't need to improve. You don't need to do anything different. You just need to bore yourself. That's all.

Why bother?

"MasterSeedy;c-2237470" wrote:
Okay, I was completely not expecting GB:Conquest to run again so soon. Wasn't it supposed to be 1x/month?

You should read dev posts.

"MasterSeedy;c-2237470" wrote:

One thing that is striking me as wrong is this: The sector has a feat "Win 20 battles without losing any units."

There aren't 20 battles. There aren't even 15. It's one thing to ask for perfection. It's another to ask us to replay perfect battles again to prove that we can get them perfect. I mean, what really is the point?

This isn't just a math error, though. And it's not just a way to make sure we run short of energy at the end of the event by causing us to spend extra energy per Sector. This is an example of CG failing to understand what is fun. If you required a number of perfect battles = the number of battles in the sector, fine. You only need to refight the ones you couldn't 3-star the first time. But if you 3 star every battle and still have to go back and fight them again? IN what world does that sound fun to anyone?

We disagree here.

I completed (as in "all 453 keycards") Normal mode in less than a week. I kept going back to Conquest in the second week and messing about with different teams for fun.

You get plenty of energy over the two weeks without refreshes. Go in and mess around with some random combinations. You might enjoy yourself.

blue and green leader's resolve here
my SLKR, GAS and 3Pac rebels go pew pew

We disagree here.
I completed (as in "all 453 keycards") Normal mode in less than a week. I kept going back to Conquest in the second week and messing about with different teams for fun.
You get plenty of energy over the two weeks without refreshes. Go in and mess around with some random combinations. You might enjoy yourself.

Yeah, I did exactly that. In fact, if you look you could see my comments praising the ability to use GB:Conquest as a sandbox to mess around and have fun. However, and it's a big "however",

1. There's a difference between choosing to mess around and being forced to repeat something,

and,
2. I didn't mess around in Sector 1 for fun. I messed around in Sector 4 & 5. Why would I want to go back to the easiest teams? If I want to mess around, I want to mess around where things are an interesting challenge.

Here's RNG working in my favor, halfway through sector 2:




Why am I getting 4/6 exactly the same? Not to mention 3 of the previous data disk nodes all had the same "Insatiable" cards in them. It's ridiculous.