9 replies to this topic

[RichAC]

LOL. Assault mode is basically the game mode that came from counterstrike. Conquest, is basically the conquest mode that came from the battlefield games.

I have never ever, heard of someone complaining about capping in any of those communities, two of the most popular fps games on the pc of all time.

I have to step off the base, so some other guy across the map can get more cbills, while we all get screwed out of xp? Those are the teams that will never win in a competitive match when community warfare comes out.

Or maybe community warfare is just going to kill off these two longstanding traditional game modes when everyone just plays team deathmatch? I mean this game is slow paced its not quake. I think capping is nescessary at times or you will really see what boring is....


I say its a cod community, as opposed to a bf3 or css one, because it seems to be just about running and gunning and seeing who has the best aim or best loadout and armor in assault mode....
Maybe PGI should give way more xp or some sort of incentives to encourage more strategy and completing objectives.

Edited by RichAC, 06 December 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Fooooo]

When you can win the match by kills alone, even with other objectives around to do, the games generally turn into kill matches.

The only way to stop that from ever happening is basically making the objectives win the match. Not the kills.

To do that you need some type of respawn system or a reinforcment system and proper objectives or a progressive mode.

(progressive as in wolf:ET, or Bad companys rush mode.)

(reinforcement as in new players join the match when others die , either from the MM finding them, or starting matches as 48vs48 and having 2 lots of 12 on the map at a time......and then drop in reinforcements as their lances when they are allowed etc.)

The attacking team MUST complete some objective before they can progress to the next one......getting to the final objective and accomplishing it wins the match. The defending team just defends.

Again, you basically need some type of spawning system or it will just be kills that win before the attackers can even get past the first objective............boring.....

Conquest does an OK job I guess without a respawn system, on large maps where you either need to keep people near bases or have fast mechs, but because you can still win on conquest via kills, most just kill.

the new attack/defend mode looks like it will basically do what I was saying.....I hope.

Edited by Fooooo, 07 December 2013 - 01:25 AM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Love me some conquest. Best game mode EVAH!!!!!

BF tryhard fo life!

[RichAC]

Fooooo, on 07 December 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

When you can win the match by kills alone, even with other objectives around to do, the games generally turn into kill matches.

The only way to stop that from ever happening is basically making the objectives win the match. Not the kills.

To do that you need some type of respawn system or a reinforcment system and proper objectives or a progressive mode.

(progressive as in wolf:ET, or Bad companys rush mode.)

(reinforcement as in new players join the match when others die , either from the MM finding them, or starting matches as 48vs48 and having 2 lots of 12 on the map at a time......and then drop in reinforcements as their lances when they are allowed etc.)

The attacking team MUST complete some objective before they can progress to the next one......getting to the final objective and accomplishing it wins the match. The defending team just defends.

Again, you basically need some type of spawning system or it will just be kills that win before the attackers can even get past the first objective............boring.....

Conquest does an OK job I guess without a respawn system, on large maps where you either need to keep people near bases or have fast mechs, but because you can still win on conquest via kills, most just kill.

the new attack/defend mode looks like it will basically do what I was saying.....I hope.

while I can kind of see your point on conquest, this isn't true for counterstrike though, the most popular fps on the pc for the past 15 years. which the assault mode is identical to.

I just feel some people refuse to cap bases no matter what and I just don't understand why and have never seen anything like this..... its been part of pc gaming for years, makes it more interesting and gratifying when your fighting for something, and makes the game about more then just who has the best aim with the most powerful loadouts in the heaviest mechs. Or who does the most damage by shooting everyones arms and legs.

NObody ever got mad at anyone for planting the bomb in counterstrike before they had a chance to kill more people. A win is a win and that person always gets congrats. To say otherwise is suspect or brainwashed.

Some believe you get more xp and cbills by winning without capping, I don't believe this is true unless you get an extra kill, but maybe PGI should give way more XP and some cbills for capping bases then they do now...

GRiPSViGiL, on 07 December 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Love me some conquest. Best game mode EVAH!!!!!

BF tryhard fo life!

I agree I've always been a battlefield person. They only added "rush" mode into bad company, because DICE was branching out into consoles for the first time with that game, and wanted to appease the console and COD fanboy crowds. In other words they had to dumb down the game for the non pc players and because of some with hardware limitations including console limits.....

I play BF3, but never play RUSH. I still prefer extra huge maps with vehicles, and where good strategy and teamwork, not just aim, wins matches....(which also deters hackers )

Edited by RichAC, 07 December 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

RichAC, on 07 December 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

while I can kind of see your point on conquest, this isn't true for counterstrike though, the most popular fps on the pc for the past 15 years. which the assault mode is identical to.

I just feel some people refuse to cap bases no matter what and I just don't understand why and have never seen anything like this..... its been part of pc gaming for years, makes it more interesting and gratifying when your fighting for something, and makes the game about more then just who has the best aim with the most powerful loadouts in the heaviest mechs. Or who does the most damage by shooting everyones arms and legs.

NObody ever got mad at anyone for planting the bomb in counterstrike before they had a chance to kill more people. A win is a win and that person always gets congrats. To say otherwise is suspect or brainwashed.

Some believe you get more xp and cbills by winning without capping, I don't believe this is true unless you get an extra kill, but maybe PGI should give way more XP and some cbills for capping bases then they do now...




I agree I've always been a battlefield person. They only added "rush" mode into bad company, because DICE was branching out into consoles for the first time with that game, and wanted to appease the console and COD fanboy crowds. In other words they had to dumb down the game for the non pc players and because of some with hardware limitations including console limits.....

I play BF3, but never play RUSH. I still prefer extra huge maps with vehicles, and where good strategy and teamwork, not just aim, wins matches....(which also deters hackers )

Conquest in this game is awesome because the team that wins the brawl doesn't always win the game. Without respawn it works well because the team with less players still has a chance.

[Spawnsalot]

Without wanting to nitpick, I'm pretty certain (unless something drastic has changed since I last played!) that Counter-Strike game modes were more Attack/Defend than MWO style Assault. Whether it was rescuing hostages or destroying bomb sites, one team had an objective to fulfil and the other team had to stop them - stopping them entailed either killing everyone or in the case of bombs, defusing the objective.

If MWO assault matches were more like CS, we would have assault matches where both teams have hostages to rescue or bombs to plant and the round ends when someone reaches the hostages or plants the bomb...

[RichAC]

Spawnsalot, on 08 December 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

Without wanting to nitpick, I'm pretty certain (unless something drastic has changed since I last played!) that Counter-Strike game modes were more Attack/Defend than MWO style Assault. Whether it was rescuing hostages or destroying bomb sites, one team had an objective to fulfil and the other team had to stop them - stopping them entailed either killing everyone or in the case of bombs, defusing the objective.

If MWO assault matches were more like CS, we would have assault matches where both teams have hostages to rescue or bombs to plant and the round ends when someone reaches the hostages or plants the bomb...

oh forgot about the hostages haha. good point. I guess I'm thinking the planting of the bomb. to me planting the bomb is the same as walking on the base to start the counter in MWO, just a little more dumbed down.

I hear alot of people saying bases should have turrets or something. I guess thinking of LoL. But imo, that would ensure nobody would bother to cap if they don't even want to now...

IN CS sometimes a match would not last long at all if someone rushed the base and saved the hostages right away. noone harassed those people about not giving anyone a chance to kill anything. They congratulated them on a job well done.

Edited by RichAC, 08 December 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[RichAC]

GRiPSViGiL, on 07 December 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Conquest in this game is awesome because the team that wins the brawl doesn't always win the game. Without respawn it works well because the team with less players still has a chance.

I agree, I don't think it needs respawn either.

[Zerberus]

For the record, UT introduced Domination mode (very similar to conquest in basic principle) well over a decade before anyone even thought of BF

[RichAC]

Zerberus, on 08 December 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

For the record, UT introduced Domination mode (very similar to conquest in basic principle) well over a decade before anyone even thought of BF

I was always a team deathmatch type of guy back then. quakelive also recently added domination mode but I don't think its too popular. UT2004 I still think was their best version.