"DarjeloSalas;c-2382457" wrote:
"Engage;c-2382453" wrote:
From my very first post to multiple responses in I have said that "every other" Conquest feels harder than the last.
I’m not sure you’ve been as clear as that…
These are all taken from your posts in this thread:
Why are enemy team stats constantly being increased every conquest?
I must have been lucky not to have to fight them at the end last conquest.
These battles would be an average difficulty if the enemy characters didn't get a major stat boost every other conquest.
If that was true then the exact same teams shouldn't be noticeably harder and faster from one event to the other.
I also specifically mentioned that the changes seem to happen every other Conquest.
If my characters and my mods have been getting stronger then why do the battles keep getting more difficult?
It's these past 2 Conquests that seem to be different for some reason.
There are phrases used in these sentences that suggest different things.
On top of that, the phrase “every other conquest” is something I find confusing, and seems inconsistent with some of the things you have said.
“Every other conquest” to me, means “every second conquest”. Which suggests you’re claiming the difficulty is being increased on conquest 1 and 3 of one set, then conquest 2 of the next, then conquest 1 and 3 of the next etc. But you have clearly stated that you’ve found the last 2 harder than the Malgus conquests, but elsewhere have suggested the difficulty increases every conquest. As I said, your wording has not been consistent or specific.
Two things which you’re welcome to consider or ignore:
- if you are finding the Swolo conquests harder than those that went before it, I think the loss of the thermal detonator disks will be making a major contribution to that. You said yourself you used them in conjunction with Volatile Accelerator and Amplify Agony. Those bombs not being there mean the enemy will be alive for longer to do more damage to your team.
- There’s also the potential that there’s an RNG fallacy at play here. Many swgoh players think RNG only does bad things. When they lose a battle that they’ve won before, it’s down to “bad RNG”. But RNG can also do good things - and sometimes swgoh players can pull something off that they were extremely lucky to pull off. The fallacy is that this hail-Mary victory was the expected outcome, and that the subsequent failures are mean horrible evil CG wielding the RNG stick again. Conquest is a game mode where there’s little value in revisiting most battles. It’s not impossible that you’ve bagged a lucky win in some battles previously and assumed that the same lineup should always win a similar battle from that point forward.
If you have played every conquest, then you would see that they always pair them up when making changes. Every other conquest is in fact different in every way from the previous set. Different mods, different data disks, different achievements, different teams and team comps, different stats on opponents.
My argument isn't based on winning a few battles and complaining about the rng mechanics for just the one I lost. I am comparing my issues with every other Conquest. This is a clear across the board change in enemy behavior and how hard they hit. If you have been using GLs or counter teams for most of your battles you most likely wouldn't notice these changes being made. It would always feel the same if the flow of battle was directed by the teams you are using. I don't have that luxury so I notice these changes and they have a huge impact from one Conquest to the next.
My JKR team went from being viable for every conquest to no longer being able to get past most teams in the last 2 conquests. Mods have had little to no impact on this. I am still playing the same Normal difficulty that I have for every Conquest.
