[MEGA] Road Ahead: October 2021

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

"Jakdnels;c-2311656" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

"Kyno;c-2311667" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311656" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2311668" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311667" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311656" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

"Kyno;c-2311675" wrote:
Absolutely the grind is different for each player, and I dont expect them to be able to make changes that will have the same effect on each player.

With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

All that being said, if they move away from feats, and move feats to the global area, it allows for things to be done in with less battle count, and allow for more overlapping. This seems to be what was done this round, to address elements of the grind.

No not every player is going to feel this the same way, we all have different rosters.

They have some number of refreshes or crystal input they are going to be looking for, I dont expect the challenge of "doing in less than X refreshes" to be something that will be consistent or a measure of the grindiness.

The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

They are not making the statements they do based on a single player, or single demographic. They have to look at things like battle count and other elements to get a correlation and adjust things based on that.

I 100% agree they did not fully address the grind and should have made more adjustments to things like repeat battles, and even the battle count for feats, even if it means more nodes to do or a shorter timeframe of the event to help keep the pressure they way they want.

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2311668" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311667" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311656" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

"Kyno;c-2311675" wrote:
The point of my original response was to point to the numbers. Which are player agnostic, and the only way to form a constructive way to examine this without diving into each individual experience. So while this may be more grindy for you, it may not be for another.

"Kyno;c-2311675" wrote:
With seasons of events that will include different feats and factions to hit those, i expect many players to go up or down between seasons in large swings.

"Kyno;c-2311688" wrote:

"Ragnarok_COTF;c-2311668" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311667" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311656" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311650" wrote:

"Jakdnels;c-2311452" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311448" wrote:

"Drathuk916;c-2311431" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311421" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311418" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311413" wrote:

"DarkHelmet1138;c-2311328" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2311326" wrote:

"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.

Oh it's not just me that feels this way. Have you read this thread or the mega thread on conquest 10?

So if you can, please see if CG can explain how the feats are less grindy or why they lied. If nothing else seeing what they try to come up with should be entertaining.

So reducing feat count doesnt ease the grind? I know there were 2 elements in the complaint around this, 1 was the repeated fights, and the other was the amount of work.

So, by reducing the number of feats, they did reduce the grind.... so no not a lie.

They did remove some feats but then made others worse. For example, before it was typically 40 battles with la and 40 with ds, which was pretty easy to get while doing the normal course of conquest.

The removed some boss feats and replaced the extra battles those required with extra battles with two teams since you can't clear most nodes with bh or smugglers.

So they didn't actually reduce the grind, they made it worse.

And there is also cross over with some of these feats.

So from the numbers it is not worse. I understand you may feel this way, but all I was discussing was the numbers and how they have changed.

You keep suggesting minimum number of battles has gone down without providing where you’ve seen this. I’m recalling things differently. I recall seeing something that suggested minimum battles was approaching 185 while previously it had been 135 or so. I specifically recall 16 refreshes was the minimum which works out to 182-187 battles whereas conquest 7-9 it was 8 or 134-139.

I can’t seem to find that in swgoh events but that goes to a different issue. Once we firmly decide if battles has gone down and by how much, I think we can actually discuss the nebulous term grind. Quite frankly it is quite possible to make something feel more laborious (grind) while diminishing the amount of work (battles).

You can do the math yourself, but I saw it on reddit. Someone comparing feats from the last set and this one.

I agree it can feel one way or the other, but I am not trying to tell people how to feel, I was just discussing the numbers I saw, in reference to reducing the focus on feats and the battle count for feats going down.

You are the one presenting the argument, and you're using 'I saw it on Reddit' as your source?

It's simple math, please feel free to prove me wrong, I have literally no reason to try and pull one over on anyone.

I don't trust you and do not have any reason to believe you when you won't back up your own argument.

Can you approve my post where I prove that it isn't fewer battles, from a practical standpoint?

That chart is so profoundly misleading. Most efficient players skipped the BH and NS feats in C7-9 because the return per battle was so poor. The 100 from LS/DS has a LOT of overlap with the others. C'mon man.

Misleading? How. That chart makes no assertion about how you attack the problem, its just laying out what the problem is, and how it changed.

How you or any player attacks this is going to be dependent on personal factors.

Yes there is a math error on that one summation...not sure how someone does that using a spreadsheet.