34 replies to this topic

[Dahzer]

Personally I do not mind conquest as a player but I do believe there needs to be some adjustments. Maybe something closer to a king of the hill game mode? 1 point in the middle and the 2 teams fight to take it. Yet this would end up as skirmish for many. Another thought was to make it say 2 bases near each side and then you need to defend those bases against the other team. Then you can actually make an assault team and defense team. A third idea would be just 1 team of defends defending a point (dropship) or a few resource rigs and the other team attacks it. Time limit defenders win, all points taken defenders lose. And once a point it over run the defenders cannot get it back also like rush in battlefield.

[FIRESTORM91]

I somewhat agree with Troutmonkey, conquest used to be a fast paced "head-on-a-swivle" game mode. With smaller battles between 2-3 mechs per team occurring at multiple capture points. Now it takes so long to cap or uncapture a point that once a point is capped it stays that way, instead of forcing teams to actually guard the points they capture. You can't afford to have most of the team (or even a lance) piling onto a single point since it makes you airstrike or artillery fodder and anyone caught out of the group is simply destroyed by the enemy. Even with a capture accelerator (I'm mostly a light pilot) it doesn't help. They probably should have kept the capture rate the way it was. So for now the game plays more like skirmish mode with a shorter game clock.

[Jeon Ji Yoon]

Mawai, on 07 October 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Conquest is the most unrewarding to play mode in the game ...

I agree but I've always thought they should add some kind of reward for capping. The lights/fast mediums are always put in a position where they have ot cap more than they can fight so even in a game that is a win by kills you have probably spent half your time standing somewhere capping or decapping ;_; but if you got something for taking points (more than just that tiny reward for participating in a cap win) it might make it worth it...

[Dauphni]

1453 R, on 07 October 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

Still better than Skirmish mode.

[XphR]

Troutmonkey, on 08 October 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Yep, Conquest is rubbish purely because of how long it takes to cap. The game is 12 minutes long, and it takes 3 minutes to cap a base. So, four possible flips in a game? Yeah, get stuffed.

I've posted about this a couple of times and never get a dev response outside of "stop creating threads every patch"

Russ said "a reasonable suggestion", as for readdressing cap times again, in the I want a refund thread that spawned the modes revote currently in place. Fingers crossed?

Edited by XphR, 08 October 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[Justy Starflare]

i thought that this change in matchmaker was suposed to make the teams more even. if so then how come most of the matches are still blowouts ?

[Dauphni]

My guess is that a lot of rolls aren't necessarily caused by a difference in "skill" but rather by one team gaining an advantage through random luck and snowballing from there. Also, the more organised team usually wins out, regardless of the quality of the individual players.

[Savage Wolf]

Uite Dauphni, on 09 October 2014 - 12:28 AM, said:

My guess is that a lot of rolls aren't necessarily caused by a difference in "skill" but rather by one team gaining an advantage through random luck and snowballing from there. Also, the more organised team usually wins out, regardless of the quality of the individual players.

This game is very much prone to snowballing. It's less of a factor at high skill levels, but remains a large factor.

[Lily from animove]

yes the mode needs an ovehaul in rewards, I say half any battlerewords, like component destriuct, kills assits and such, and heavily increase rewards for ressource scores, capping, assits and kills that happen close to the ressouce spots.

[Dauphni]

Savage Wolf, on 09 October 2014 - 02:02 AM, said:

This game is very much prone to snowballing. It's less of a factor at high skill levels, but remains a large factor.

It really is. I think the best protection against snowballing is having multiple equally viable victory conditions, so that it's possible to recover from early mistakes by switching strategies. In the game as it is now that is just not the case, though conquest is a little better than the other gamemodes. And in my experience, conquest does see fewer completely lopsided outcomes as a result, at any skill level.

Edited by Uite Dauphni, 09 October 2014 - 04:17 AM.

[reaverOfCheesecake]

Apparently they are rolling the soft (FORCED REALLY) game selection thingy back (based on other threads on this forum)...

WOOHOO...

It was an experiment that when horribly wrong but at least they have agreed to sort it out and that is good enough for me

EDIT

Here is link confirming the rollback. (I'm so damn happy now)

http://mwomercs.com/...45#entry3802545

Edited by reaverOfCheesecake, 09 October 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Uite Dauphni, on 09 October 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

It really is. I think the best protection against snowballing is having multiple equally viable victory conditions, so that it's possible to recover from early mistakes by switching strategies. In the game as it is now that is just not the case, though conquest is a little better than the other gamemodes. And in my experience, conquest does see fewer completely lopsided outcomes as a result, at any skill level.

It has certainly something to do with the current emphasis on deathmatch where the effects are the worst. And yes, I certainly don't feel like I get stomped as often as others are talking about, but that could also be difference in skill level. Would only know for sure if I had all the data.
But objectives can certainly change game play to be less prone to snowballing.

[C4-Wolfy36]

I've come to believe that people who like conquest, skirmish, and assault do so because their brains work differently. Here is my observations for each mode:

Conquest: High brain function desiring ever changing situations and options

Assault: Medium brain function desiring the same situation with the ability to die with turrets

Skirmish: Low brain function desiring slow, heavily armed, overly armored camping vehicles with the ability to kill squirrels
with one shot

[bayoucowboy]

What about those of us that like all three game modes?

As a side note - I think conquest would be more interesting if there was a negative effect applied to the opposite team other than a possible loss, i.e. Battlefield's faster ticket countdown (which would obviously not be applicable here). Maybe a comms disruption on the team with less caps - to remove the IFF tags/shared targeting (similar to the known IFF bug): this would lead to more friendly fire incidents to the team without IFF AND cause some hesitation in targeting/triggering direct fire.

Or you could just give us more C-Bills

[Troutmonkey]

skorpionet, on 08 October 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

To Troutmonkey, you are de-capping and capping alone with a 98% fast mech... Excuse me but think that you miss the point of this mode.

I thought the point of the mode was to cap points? A fast mech lets me get to points quickly and then cap them. Unfortunately due to the slow cap rates my speed is completely negated, and capping has become pointless.

It used to be that capping would win games, with the enemy having to break it's death ball formation to contest enough caps to win, anything else would be a loss.

Now, spreading out to cap means that you stand on spot for 3 minutes, by which point the enemy death ball has rolled on through and killed you, with plenty of time to roll on through the other 4 points. You can't even cap behind the death ball because they'll still have time to roll all the way back and kill you - Even with cap accelerators.

60 (25 each side and 10 seconds neutral) seconds should be full -cap to full cap, with each mech contributing .5sec/sec to the cap speed. You can then cap out the minimum cap speed so that it would take 15 seconds or so. This makes capping possible, and leads to faster paced and more dynamic games

Edited by Troutmonkey, 09 October 2014 - 09:20 PM.