[MEGA] Road Ahead: October 2021

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311320" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311316" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311311" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311293" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311254" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2310906" wrote:

"zatho;c-2310902" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2310890" wrote:

"zatho;c-2310854" wrote:

"TheChild_eats_eggs1;c-2310813" wrote:

"Zumwan;d-250945" wrote:
It was communicated that the idea was to make Conquest have less emphasis on feats and more on battle nodes. There was a big increase on the amount of battle nodes. In Normal Mode, at least, the amount of feats hasn't changed. If anything, we now need more battles than before to complete the feats (for example, apply evasion down 30 times in Sector 1 instead of apply Daze 20 times in Sector 4 or 5 the previous time around).
Can we get some more energy so us F2P players (that won't be buying the Conquest Pass +) can play more of a game mode we enjoy, and make meaningful progress in it?

Feats have reduced … but they’re more painful

That was a lie from CG, adding to the endless list from the past. They promised less emphasis on feats. But while the number of feats has been reduced, the number of battles to complete the feats probably even increased.

The breakdown I saw, showed a lower total battle count for feats, and with the cross over it may technically be even lower than that.

Lower battle count for the average player or only for those with highly developed scoundrels and bounty hunters? I think some player may save some battles but most players need more to complete

The battle count was literally a breakdown of feats and how many battles to complete each one, as an individual things for both this set and 7-9.

This has nothing to do with a players roster.

Yes it does. Let's say your bounty hunters or smugglers are good enough to beat a node or two in sector 1 but not the later sectors. You will likely have to repeat the bh or smuggler battle 40 times each on that sector while making no progress on other sectors.

If you have those teams at r8, you can probably get the feat as you go with very few extra battles. So it does make a difference.

There is the argument to develop these teams to make it less difficult but I would contend that is not a very good option for the majority of the player base. R8 smugglers isn't good resource management. They simply do not have enough use to be worth the investment.

20 battles with each of these factions would be more reasonable. 40 is excessive.

And if the gear check was the desire, then 40 is still excessive. If I can beat 5 battles with bounty hunters or smugglers, the gear check is met. Doing it 35 more times with subpar teams is just grindy.

If CG wants it grindy, they should just say so. But to say 40 battles with smugglers isn't grindy is a lie.

No one (well at least not many) are complaining about the gamorian guard feat. It's a blatant gear check but at least it isn't grindy. You do ot once and you're good.

The breakdown of how many battles its takes to compete the feats is independent of your roster. It is just math based on what is called for.

That is all I was saying.

The effort it takes a player to so those counts is on them and their roster, but it doesnt change what the numbers are.

As for the numbers, being able to do 4 battles a day with any given team, is pretty reasonable and that means thos 40 can be done in 10 days. Which also seems reasonable. I and I think many others would love 20, this would be easy. I do not think they are trying to make it easy to get max rewards, which is why I dont expect the numbers like that to change, especially when they push things to the global area, and it can be done in section 1 with a lower geared team and a good set of discs.

That arguement would be valid and I'm not arguing that it is impossible to get. But it is still just as grindy (if not more so) for the average player. 14 battles with geos was 1 grindy battle a day with them (or 2 or 3 towards the end since it was on the last sector). The point is that CG said they heard our feedback and made it less grindy.

Had the came out and honestly said that they like the grind and that it would stay that way, then it'd be fine. But I don't like being lied to.

I was responding to someone saying they didnt hold up their end on the less feat focused, but they did. The battle count for feats is less.

It is still grindy, more so if you restric this definition to repeated battles, but less so if you consider just the total battle count.

Total battle count wasn't what the community was complaining about. It was repetitive battles. CG said they heard us and then went from 14 battles with one faction to 40. And they wonder why we're upset. That's about as tone deaf as it gets.

You can't accurately measure how many battles it'll take to clear the feats. It will vary by a lot. If it were a 40 battles with jmk, you could maybe assume that they could do it as they go since jmk can steam roll most anything. But when it's 40 battles with a d team like smugglers, it'll likely be 40 extra battles on sector 1 against the weakest team they can find because against a good team, smugglers have a poor win rate.

So on paper, it may be less battles but in reality, it really isn't. And it doesn't take a genius to know that. So the only conclusion I can draw is that CG knew it was going to be just as grindy and spun it (lied) to say it would be better.

Just because they leave themselves a "from a certain point of view" it wasn't a lie (ep 6 pun intended), doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. It just means they knew it was misleading and took the time to have an excuse later. Why not be honest.

If they had said we heard you don't like grindy feats but don't care. If you want the max rewards, it requires the grind, that would have at least been honest.

Then I'm not sure why you jumped on that conversation, we were not talking about how gridny it is, and nothing I was saying was, "look it's less grindy".

Also you may not have been, but yes the total battle count going up was part of what makes it more of a "second job", and grindy. I dont think many would have complained as much if it was still low cost and early style with repeat battles being the only down side.

Anyway, I didnt say it was less grindy, but I can see how it is in some sense, because I can literally do less battles, that means less grind.

Yes you can accurately measure a battle count from the feats listed. Use X toon in battle 40 times, means 40 battles. And so on. Yes some would have a range, when you talk about killing toons with another toon, but you can start at 1 kill per battle and theorize 5 kills if you wish. Either way at the end you would be able to compare last Conquest with this one, using the same style of break down for same style of feats.

I'm not here to argue with you about how you feel about what they said. You can feel how you want. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's your feelings.