Jump to content

Conquest Can Be Fun.


47 replies to this topic

#41 Death Proof

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 546 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 05:11 PM

View PostBlood Skar, on 24 November 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:


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.


Yes my remark was rude, but it was made facetiously. Sorry, I'm just tired of people whining about this topic and I get tired of explaining why allowing players to select their game mode is a terrible idea for this game.

For what it's worth, I thought having a voting system was a bad idea too; I would have preferred it if they simply made it random selection to make it even faster.

#42 Dino Might

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2015 - 03:45 AM

View PostBlood Skar, on 24 November 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:


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.


Where is this poll where 2 of 3 voted to remove it? Did I miss something? What was the sampling statistic - i.e., what was the population size vs actual population of MWO? What's your error? Did you ask only 3 people and 2 said they didn't like it? How does that correlate with the entire community?

I could say, 9 out of 10 Mechwarriors love the taste of burnt toast, by going out and asking a select group of 10 people and getting 9 affirmative responses.

#43 Clownwarlord

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,410 posts
  • LocationBusy stealing clan mechs.

Posted 25 November 2015 - 04:02 AM

No not really when I am squatting around in a 100 ton dire whale ... nope not that fun.

#44 adamts01

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2015 - 04:06 AM

MWO was broken in to a possible 7 different groups between cw and group and solo with all their options. Come on. That had to change with this limited population. The voting system was terrible. But I honestly think weighted voting is working. I Think it's clear that the majority was COD skirmish tdm. With weighted voting conquest players eventually get their game and if there aren't any conquest players, no one votes for it but trolls, and everyone is happy. Just chill out and play it because it's good for the community as a whole to combine it's limited players.

#45 MercilessTRADER

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 90 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 25 November 2015 - 04:51 AM

Just wish people that like conquest could play it, and people who like assault could play that... Call me old fashion. I like choice while spending my valuable time gaming.

#46 12oz Jesus

    Member

  • Pip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 18 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 08:42 AM

If I wanted to play "chase", Conquest might be fun.

In most games like Battlefield 4 and such, I ONLY play objective based games. However, the dynamics of mech combat - speed differences, massively increased strategy of "simple" firefights, and other factors - simply lend to the capture points taking away the fun of the combat. Either you're a fast light running around watching a color bar change while mostly running away from red triangles due to lack of nearby friendly support, or you are a slower big mech getting abandoned by your team, frustratingly chasing said lights, or simply going from small unbalanced fight to the next as strangers try to work out some semblance of cooperation.

Those who say that conquest is usually just the same as skirmish know they're full of s---t if they've played more than 3 rounds of Conquest. Most often any interesting fight between the brawlers just gets interrupted by 1 or 2 lights who have capped 4 of 5 bases while my teams lights ignored them to pot shot.

It has not gone unnoticed that conquest couldn't carry 1 vote in 100 when all things were equal. Just let us blow **** up... (or add true combined arms on Battlefield 4 style maps).

Edited by 12oz Jesus, 25 November 2015 - 08:45 AM.


#47 kanamisan

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 51 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 08:57 AM

View Post12oz Jesus, on 25 November 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

If I wanted to play "chase", Conquest might be fun.

In most games like Battlefield 4 and such, I ONLY play objective based games. However, the dynamics of mech combat - speed differences, massively increased strategy of "simple" firefights, and other factors - simply lend to the capture points taking away the fun of the combat. Either you're a fast light running around watching a color bar change while mostly running away from red triangles due to lack of nearby friendly support, or you are a slower big mech getting abandoned by your team, frustratingly chasing said lights, or simply going from small unbalanced fight to the next as strangers try to work out some semblance of cooperation.

Those who say that conquest is usually just the same as skirmish know they're full of s---t if they've played more than 3 rounds of Conquest. Most often any interesting fight between the brawlers just gets interrupted by 1 or 2 lights who have capped 4 of 5 bases while my teams lights ignored them to pot shot.

It has not gone unnoticed that conquest couldn't carry 1 vote in 100 when all things were equal. Just let us blow **** up... (or add true combined arms on Battlefield 4 style maps).

The thing is that its your opinion which you have stated, not actual fact.

as far as my opinion about your opinion.
conquest is very simple, each team just needs to go for three of the 5. even if your team is only down to two, the larger mechs especially just need to get in and fight. the smaller mechs have more options as to what to do, based on their higher mobility, but even then, early on especially, its about taking down the other team a few pegs. with the way most people play, outside of getting the extra needed cap point or two, most players just will not live long enough for the end match strategy to come into play. more to the point, because there is an endgame in each match, it does end before it draws on too long.

conquest deals with the problem of hiding mechs by letting you outcap them, if they try to cap back, it helps you find out where they are and deal with them. in which pushes the match along, The cap points force engagements when otherwise the "nascar" like events happened.

all of this comes at the cost of having more to think about then just killing your targets. but lets be honest. You do not need much if any thought to understand the basics. The dynamics of this game work better with objectives then without.

That's my opinion however. its different from yours.

#48 illudium Q 36

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 73 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 25 November 2015 - 10:27 AM

In my opinion, chasing light mechs (particularly Artic Cheetahs) is not my idea of fun. For those who like playing a version of "Capture the Flag" here are some options for you.

http://www.giantbomb.../3015-25/games/

I have a low opinion on the claims of a "greater strategy" being required in order to masterfully play a Conquest game. Running down Daffy Duck light mechs just doesn't interest me. I don't even like BEING the crazy light mech.

It's interesting to note that all of the animation that I can remember seeing from PGI for MWO accentuates the "Robot Versus Robot" concepts of the game.

I believe that "Fightin' Bots" will win out over "Running Chickens" most of the time.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users