Jump to content

Conquest Can Be Fun.


47 replies to this topic

#21 Blood Skar

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 97 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 11:53 PM

View Postadamts01, on 23 November 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

Not really. It points to the problem of not enough players. There were only a few options.

1. Longer wait times for better matches.

2. Reduce game modes to consolidate players.

3. Throw beginners in with the veterans to decrease wait times.

With my wait times the way they were and the absolute lack of talent I had been seeing, their choice was spot on for my region. Yes it sucks for NA where you have plenty of players for MM to work correctly and still have acceptable wait times. Maybe that server can keep the choice. You only like conquest, I only like skirmish, we both play them all well and with weighted voting we each get to play our mode, granted me more often. I do believe people will learn conquest and get better, because they have to eventually.


Just to clear up 2 assumptions ..(i'm not trying to be an ass)
I'm in the EU(UK to be precise) and i cant stand Conquest.(over the other 2 modes i mean)

Your number 3 is the answer to me (for this 'Oceanic problem' i mean - this is a bit off topic tbh)
Have a mixed pot of tiers in a game.
It would be like 'those other games' where they chuck in a few higher or lower tier units to fill out the field. In all honesty i think more transparency with the whole MM thing would be a good idea.
I know when i first started i didn't learn anything from playing bad players i learnt from getting my ass handed to me :)
Come Steam release maybe you guys will have to endure less waits.

Me calling for the return of the mode selector for better games shouldn't have to affect your wait times if the MM was handled differently.

My last line here (spent far too much time posting already hehe)
To the OP:
I agree Conquest can be fun. I have had a game that went to 750/749...that was fun yes i admit...it was also a long time ago. However Conquest would be more fun with more like minded players. The way to this is the return of the selector for modes. I suggest bringing it back just after Steam Release as this will affect wait times the least. Maybe in the New Year. PGI will do what they want at the end of the day. Just doing my little bit to try to help the game develop.

Edited by Blood Skar, 24 November 2015 - 12:22 AM.


#22 adamts01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 3,417 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 24 November 2015 - 12:23 AM

View PostBlood Skar, on 23 November 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:


Just to clear up 2 assumptions ..(i'm not trying to be an ass)
I'm in the EU(UK to be precise) and i cant stand Conquest.

Your number 3 is the answer to me (for this 'Oceanic problem' i mean - this is a bit off topic tbh)
Have a mixed pot of tiers in a game.

Sorry if I came off as rude. I definitely don't think you were rude in any way. As far as MM goes, you're ok with mixing tiers as you're in the middle of the road. I play more competitively, know how to work as a team, and expect to be grouped with similar players. I'm not saying you don't know how to work as a team, but many more tier 3s don't than tier 1s. As a general rule.

With regards to conquest, and how this ties in, more experienced players know how to play each mode. Even if I'm forced in to playing conquest, I'll still know and do what's expected of me. I think with higher skilled teammates you wot have your current issues with mode selection.

#23 Death Proof

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 546 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:00 AM

View PostBlood Skar, on 23 November 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:

Nice. Your the type of person the OP was referring to.
Selective Cut and Paste toxic warrior without addressing my arguements.


Your "arguments" are based on a moot point that has been addressed ad nauseam. And while my response may have been brusque — perhaps even rude — I blame my impatience to having to say the same thing over and over again when it comes to game mode selection.

That is, it's basically the same response I might give when my kid whines about having to do chores or school work.

PGI has stated time and time again that the player population can not support as many player options as we once had. Personally, I think it was a bad idea to ever give players a choice; You can't miss what you never had. But better they are admitting it now and taking steps to make the matchmaker better for everyone, not just a select few that are so inflexible and incapable of adapting.

Edited by Death Proof, 24 November 2015 - 07:16 AM.


#24 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:00 AM

I've had one or two of those type of games, and yes they were fun. However, the whole concept of Conquest is what I despise. Pilots should be thinking about combat, but instead their focus is divided. It's really about capping and IF there are mechs near the capping point then we fight. Otherwise it's "which base (a plot of ground not much bigger than a mech where you don't do anything at all except stand motionless) should we capture next? Instead, it should be which enemy mech is our next target?

#25 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:08 AM

I still can't understand how much angst there is over the mode of game when the mode affects gameplay maybe 5% of the time. 95% of conquest matches end in one side fully destroyed, rather than on points. 95% of assault mode games end with one side destroyed rather than base capped. 95% of skirmish matches end with one side fully destroyed.

So why are we so up in arms over the 5% of games that don't play out the way some people want them to play out (i.e., as pure skirmish matches)? I mean, really...how bad is it? I find myself less dissatisfied with the game itself and more dissatisfied with these forums as time progresses. Maybe I should just go, because it irks me when we spend so much time and energy on something that is almost irrelevant.

It's akin to BP spending all their time in safety briefings on how to walk up and down ladders without falling and ignoring the serious engineering problem with their oil containment safety system.

TL;DR: You, specifically, never had a choice in game mode anyways. The game mode is always determined by what the majority of players are doing. Even if it's conquest, if most are playing it as skirmish, you are playing it as skirmish. If you have a problem with it, complain about the other players who aren't playing the way you want them to (don't do that - it's stupid).

#26 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:10 AM

View Postadamts01, on 24 November 2015 - 12:23 AM, said:

...With regards to conquest, and how this ties in, more experienced players know how to play each mode. Even if I'm forced in to playing conquest, I'll still know and do what's expected of me.


I don't always know what to do in Conquest, because I think like someone who is in combat and not how to strategically stand on a plot of land not much bigger than a mech and stand still. I am thinking about how to approach the next enemy mech, where to shoot, should I alpha, should I try for a headshot regardless of how improbable, should I leg...I'm thinking about ammo, and heat, spreading damage, escape routes...all things that have to do with, you know, combat.

#27 MechWarrior3671771

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,021 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:16 AM

"I think like someone who is in combat and not how to strategically stand on a plot of land not much bigger than a mech and stand still."

Having been in actual combat, I can say with authority that you don't know what combat is.

Because there are times you are required to "strategically stand on a plot of land"

#28 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:17 AM

View PostDino Might, on 24 November 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

I still can't understand how much angst there is over the mode of game when the mode affects gameplay maybe 5% of the time. 95% of conquest matches end in one side fully destroyed, rather than on points. 95% of assault mode games end with one side destroyed rather than base capped. 95% of skirmish matches end with one side fully destroyed.


It's the frame of mind Conquest/Assault vs. Skirmish. It's the priority of bases over combat. Very few (if any) Conquests have I heard a team come out and say at the beginning of a match, whether in chat or on VOIP, "we are not gonna cap but kill the enemy only". There is a big difference in the way the game is played. Is there combat or is there thoughts of combat in capping modes? Of course, but that is not the focus in the beginning or throughout the match. When you spawn, the first thing that comes to mind is which base is the closest. From the get-go there is a priority and it's not combat.

Edited by Coolant, 24 November 2015 - 07:18 AM.


#29 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:18 AM

View PostCoolant, on 24 November 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:


I don't always know what to do in Conquest, because I think like someone who is in combat and not how to strategically stand on a plot of land not much bigger than a mech and stand still. I am thinking about how to approach the next enemy mech, where to shoot, should I alpha, should I try for a headshot regardless of how improbable, should I leg...I'm thinking about ammo, and heat, spreading damage, escape routes...all things that have to do with, you know, combat.


I've never been in combat, so I can't say whether what you think it's like is legit or not. If you have, then consider this an educational moment for me. I would assume many in combat are primarily thinking, "**** **** ****!"

#30 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:21 AM

View PostFenrisulvyn, on 24 November 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

"I think like someone who is in combat and not how to strategically stand on a plot of land not much bigger than a mech and stand still."

Having been in actual combat, I can say with authority that you don't know what combat is.

Because there are times you are required to "strategically stand on a plot of land"


Please tell me what war was won by magically standing on a plot of land more than the enemy with no combat?

#31 adamts01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 3,417 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:29 AM

View PostCoolant, on 24 November 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

I don't always know what to do in Conquest,

I normally don't like it in pug land. But it is a cool game mode for groups. It's like a big game if chess. Knowing when to fight on the front line, or when to get some more points. Figuring out where their lights are to hunt down and destroy their capping capabilities. Deathball or cap? Sacrifice front line capabilities to leave an ambush for capping mechs. There are a lot more options and I can appreciate that. But any way you slice it, there is much more room for error and it's rare to find the required teamwork unless you drop in a large group.

#32 kanamisan

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 51 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:33 AM

View PostCoolant, on 24 November 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:


Please tell me what war was won by magically standing on a plot of land more than the enemy with no combat?

sarcasm/
every paradox map simulator ever. (possibly except for hoi)
/sarcasm

in truth, it does help to have people blocking the other teams supplys while guarding yours. but as the maps in this game are not quite large enough, its not that relevent.

for what we are doing, its just a game and as a game, it works nice, just like other games which involve standing on territory. such as baseball. I am pretty sure baseball as a sport is doing pretty well for itself. at least in japan.

#33 adamts01

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 3,417 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:35 AM

View PostCoolant, on 24 November 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:


Please tell me what war was won by magically standing on a plot of land more than the enemy with no combat?

Avoiding battles because of an overwhelming presence is very important. Keeping an air field a "no fighting zone" can absolutely win a war.


#34 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:52 AM

View Postadamts01, on 23 November 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:


...
I was routinely waiting OVER AN HOUR dropping with my brother for a 12-1 match where my entire assault lance was asking for locks.... Where did PGI dig them up from? Definitely not tier 1 or 2.
...



What makes you think they aren't tier 1 or 2? One of the better ways to farm PSR is in an LRM assault. Ideally with CERML as backup. As long as locks are available it can put up high damage numbers as well as being decent (in terms of damage) at any range less than 500m with the CERML. Of course, they may not actually be the best players and it is far from the most effective mech for winning (focused damage FTW) but the builds will usually do good damage win or lose which is a key element of match score which in turn affects PSR. (Add TAG and BAP for pro PSR farming :) ).

#35 Maxx Blue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 370 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:58 AM

I enjoy conquest. Not so much if I'm playing a painfully slow assault, but it is still probably my favorite game mode.

#36 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 08:56 AM

View PostCoolant, on 24 November 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:


Please tell me what war was won by magically standing on a plot of land more than the enemy with no combat?


"with no combat" is not consistent with the analogy you are looking for - in MWO, standing around still has the potential and often does end up in an exchange of fire.

A relevant analogy is Fort McHenry during the American Revolution. The fort's defenders stayed hunkered down while the British continually shelled the position. I'm sure some thought to abandon the fort, since the British ships were at the extreme edge of effective or out of effective range of the fort's guns - how could they fight back?

The reality of the situation is that just by being there, stationary in the fort, the defenders prevented the British ships from moving through the channel to invade Baltimore from the sea.

Retaining strategic control of the bay was achieved by tactical "standing still" occupying a piece of land.

Edited by Dino Might, 24 November 2015 - 09:05 AM.


#37 Tyler Valentine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Corporal
  • 1,472 posts
  • LocationChandler, Arizona

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:26 AM

View PostBlood Skar, on 23 November 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:


To you other guys here:
How do you think the current voting for modes adds to your gameplay?
You are saying it is helping with wait times...that i can see of course..that's because a lot of players had Conquest turned off with the old mode selector.
Having players who don't want to play Conquest in a Conquest game surely isn't the way to go for the game.



-Voting improves my game play experience mildly because of the short meta-game. I'll play any map, any mode, any server so I could care less most of the time. Every once in a while I really want to rock my Whale-B or Fatlas-DC so it's nice when I have the weight to pick a brawler map.

-I would guess that it is due to the fact that many players had either 'Assault' 'Skirmish' or 'Conquest' turned off. Seems illogical to assume that it was only 'Conquest' that was disabled simply because it was your least favorite.

-Don't understand how you can care so much. Conquest is like, 5% different than skirmish, especially if you take a larger 'mech. If you want to fight other stompy robots, all modes will accomplish your goal...

#38 Blood Skar

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 97 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 12:57 PM

View PostDeath Proof, on 24 November 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:


Your "arguments" are based on a moot point that has been addressed ad nauseam. And while my response may have been brusque — perhaps even rude — I blame my impatience to having to say the same thing over and over again when it comes to game mode selection.

That is, it's basically the same response I might give when my kid whines about having to do chores or school work.

PGI has stated time and time again that the player population can not support as many player options as we once had. Personally, I think it was a bad idea to ever give players a choice; You can't miss what you never had. But better they are admitting it now and taking steps to make the matchmaker better for everyone, not just a select few that are so inflexible and incapable of adapting.


You are a rude person based on your initial reply to me that was also completely unconstructive.
You admit you talked to me how you talk to your whiny child. Nice.

2 out of 3 players have voted that they want voting removed completely. This is far from the 'select few' lol
...so it seems the tide is against you - not with you.
Also Steam release will sort out any 'player population' arguements.

Edited by Blood Skar, 24 November 2015 - 01:33 PM.


#39 Blood Skar

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 97 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 01:08 PM

''-Voting improves my game play experience mildly because of the short meta-game. I'll play any map, any mode, any server so I could care less most of the time. Every once in a while I really want to rock my Whale-B or Fatlas-DC so it's nice when I have the weight to pick a brawler map.''

I have said i would like a mode selector(like we had prior to November...)- i don't mind keeping the map vote. I agree i like having a say on the map played.

''-I would guess that it is due to the fact that many players had either 'Assault' 'Skirmish' or 'Conquest' turned off. Seems illogical to assume that it was only 'Conquest' that was disabled simply because it was your least favorite.''

No, i based that on the guy who was saying his wait times have reduced drastically, on my experience and from what i read on the forums. Oh and the votes on the polls. Also Conquest was BY FAR the least chosen mode when voting hit - prior to the multiplier changes....hence i imagine a lot of players had it turned off prior to November.

''-Don't understand how you can care so much. Conquest is like, 5% different than skirmish, especially if you take a larger 'mech. If you want to fight other stompy robots, all modes will accomplish your goal...''

2 in 3 players want the vote removed(more than 2 in 3 want it changed) only 22% want it left 'as is' - it's not just me asking for this. The majority are. Look at the vote polls for proof.

Edited by Blood Skar, 24 November 2015 - 01:27 PM.


#40 CtrlAltWheee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 610 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 01:43 PM

Conquest is my favorite mode





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users