Jump to content

Small Maps And Conquest Cap Times


9 replies to this topic

#1 GrizzlyViking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationMarik

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:47 AM

Since the introduction of extended cap times, Conquest Mode on small maps has turned into Assault Mode with extra bases. On large maps the longer cap time is reasonable due to the greater distance between CAP points, but on small maps most Assaults can cross the map from one side to the other in the time it takes to capture a collection point. The longer CAP time on small maps makes Conquest Mode play like Assault Mode and that defeats the purpose of having 2 modes. Conquest and Assault should not play the same.

Edited by GrizzlyViking, 26 October 2013 - 05:49 AM.


#2 Roughneck45

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Handsome Devil
  • The Handsome Devil
  • 4,452 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 26 October 2013 - 05:53 AM

I do wish we could cap faster in conquest. Standing there to cap is almost a bad idea because of how long it will keep you out of the fight.

I think PGI changed it to try and encourage more teamwork but it has just made things more frustrating.

Maybe if the cap accel module got a buff for conquest, so that if you wanted to focus on capping you could, or if cap speed had some sort of tonnage associated with it so that heavier mechs got a slight boost to cap speed since it takes them the longest to get there.

Edited by Roughneck45, 26 October 2013 - 05:55 AM.


#3 Tyman4

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • LocationSpace Time

Posted 26 October 2013 - 07:24 AM

2 good ideas I've heard are

proportional tonnage cap timing- your proportional weight on your team effects how quickly you cap. A light with a whole team alive will cap slower than a light with dead teammates because the second's proportional weight is higher. Therefore, cap time depends on the fight, and the surviving mechs can cap really quickly, forcing the enemy to shift priorities to win. Dynamic play

eliminating the "neutral" cap- remove the yellow section of the cap bar. This removes the idea of simply stopping the enemy points, and instead give your team the points quicker.

PGI- cap times in conquest are a gamebalance suggestion for the game mode, stop moving these threads to maps and modes

#4 Charons Little Helper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • LocationRight behind you!

Posted 26 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

Or just make the cap times a bit faster on the smaller maps.

#5 GrizzlyViking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationMarik

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:32 PM

View PostTyman4, on 26 October 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

2 good ideas I've heard are

proportional tonnage cap timing- your proportional weight on your team effects how quickly you cap. A light with a whole team alive will cap slower than a light with dead teammates because the second's proportional weight is higher. Therefore, cap time depends on the fight, and the surviving mechs can cap really quickly, forcing the enemy to shift priorities to win. Dynamic play

eliminating the "neutral" cap- remove the yellow section of the cap bar. This removes the idea of simply stopping the enemy points, and instead give your team the points quicker.

PGI- cap times in conquest are a gamebalance suggestion for the game mode, stop moving these threads to maps and modes

Slower cap with more teammates alive is an interesting idea, but not sure that will effectively address the issue on smaller maps. I don't care where threads are located...I just wonder if anybody that has the power to make pertinent decisions ever reads them.

#6 Randalf Yorgen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Locationwith in 3m of the exposed Arcons rear ct

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:16 AM

View PostGrizzlyViking, on 28 October 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Slower cap with more teammates alive is an interesting idea, but not sure that will effectively address the issue on smaller maps. I don't care where threads are located...I just wonder if anybody that has the power to make pertinent decisions ever reads them.



And that is the $64,000.00 question isn't it Grizz, even when we ask for feedbeck from the devs we 99 times out of 100 get no response and out of the responses we do get 99 out of 100 of those are from Moderators and not PGI Dev Staff. It's ain't like the Closed Beta old days is it.

#7 Justy Starflare

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:06 PM

Another suggestion is to increase the reward for capping
and assisting and decrease the reward for damage and
kills.

#8 Ghogiel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • CS 2021 Gold Champ
  • 6,852 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:55 AM

I see that mistake quite a lot on small conquest maps. All you ever should do is catch the first base nearest your starting point, then move all forces together to take the central base and have the entire team fight over that.

If several players run off to try to cap bases, it's relatively pointless on small maps as the odds of it ending in deaths rather than resources is far higher. Meaning the priority is the fight, win that or keep it even and later capping can come into play strategically.

Basically blob up and roll on small conquest maps or you're doing it wrong. It's even worse when 4 assault mechs start waddling over by themselves to cap some base that isn't the center point.

#9 GrizzlyViking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationMarik

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostGhogiel, on 30 October 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

I see that mistake quite a lot on small conquest maps. All you ever should do is catch the first base nearest your starting point, then move all forces together to take the central base and have the entire team fight over that.

If several players run off to try to cap bases, it's relatively pointless on small maps as the odds of it ending in deaths rather than resources is far higher. Meaning the priority is the fight, win that or keep it even and later capping can come into play strategically.

Basically blob up and roll on small conquest maps or you're doing it wrong. It's even worse when 4 assault mechs start waddling over by themselves to cap some base that isn't the center point.


Well, that is exactly my point. The strategy you are suggesting is an Assault type strategy for wins on a small conquest map. If cap speed on small maps were changed back to the original cap speed it would force teams to play the caps Conquest style again instead of base camping one cap location and playing Assault style.

#10 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:22 AM

I rarely play conquest anymore ever since the DM-blobtards got the cap timers broken with their whining.

Now for the most part I play assault and rush cap just to **** them off, and plan on trolling DM when it comes at least a few thousand times.

Hey, they had my game broken, so now I`m going to ruin theirs :ph34r:

I could have lived with the cap times being maybe the median from before and now, but after months of gimped conquest matches with lights standing around with their wang in their hand "praying for the goddam base to finally switch ******* color", WITH cap accelerator module, I`m through with it and am out for revenge. That revenge being making them cry so much that they drown before DM comes.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 November 2013 - 03:27 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users