55 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

EvilCow, on 08 October 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Or:

- Reduce to one central cap point on smaller maps.
- Call it "king of the hill".

Lots of fun.

so, just like death match then? Force everyone to one point to brawl it out? That doesn't fix anything. In conquest mode, we need more than 3 points at all times. We already start with one point close to our base so each side gets one right off the bat. If only 1 point is left, guess what? That then turns into death match lol.

There has to be incentive to cap multiple points while still allowing for some brawling but not make it all out brawl all the time.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 08 October 2014 - 01:29 PM.

[Helsbane]

Capture time is far too long. It takes three minutes for a lone unit to move the bar from one side to the other. During that exceedingly lengthy period of time, you have a flashing indicator at the top of the screen telling everyone where you are.

There are zero rewards for capping. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. So why bother? Just stick with the deathball and shoot things.

Capture points on some maps were placed waaaay too close together. Alpine, in its original format, was perfect for Conquest. Then, to cater to the nine assaults per team every match, they moved them closer together. Put them back where they were originally.

[warner2]

From your list the one that best describes my experience is "Confused/disorganized combat".

It's like when when Terra Therma comes up (on any mode). It's probably going to be a bad game. We all know why. We just know that on average Terra Therma produces bad games.

Well I feel the same way about conquest. The fact is conquest gives you "other things to do" besides shooting and that attracts a certain kind of player. Perhaps tired of the straight-up combat you get on skirmish and assault, for example. Whatever, it doesn't matter. On average I feel there are more chaotic, disorganised games consisting of 12 solos running around like chickens without a head on conquest compared to the other game modes. That doesn't mean the other game modes can't be equally as bad I just find that each and every time I drop conquest I regret it and toggle it off again immediately.

I'm just more likely to get more of an organised team-effort from both sides in either of the other game modes (caveat: on the solo queue).

[LordKnightFandragon]

I hate it cuz its best played and often played like Skirmish. Plus it largely favors small faster mechs if your going to cap. I suppose this is fine, it would give some additional viability to light mechs. But in the end, the team with no mechs loses...

Trying to cap just splits up your team and so they get beat in a series of 4 on 1 engagements and in the end your capping is irrelevant and pointless to even do.

PLus, the cap points are little seriously exposed squares where you must sit and weather fire for minutes at a time.....



Perhaps if Conquest: Allowed us to respawn, based on a series of tickets, or maybe make this Garage mode...

If it made the cap zones bigger and better protected, like maybe have just a few posts at a few key locations, like one in the middle of that city on Alpine, 1 at the oil rig thing on the, west? side of the map and another at the city that I think is up at the top of the map.....make hte game mode won more on cap points and less on killing.

River city: place 2 cap points, 1 at the dropship and another on the dock. Teams spawn in the city up on the hill top and another spawn in the city south of the dropship. Ofc, this is just a bad map for conquest...very tiny...in the end im sure it would be skirmish to the death....

Make it where light mechs get increased cap speed, so the team has more reason to protect the light mechs.

Then, if we were to allow respawns, make each team a base camp, in that camp there is a repair bay so the players who play well and manage to live awhile can repair so they dont simply lose thier mech, as happens in mech games with repawns...the freshly spawned mechs win simply on attrition and not at all on skill.

[Egomane]

I see a point in slightly reducing capture times (maybe to 2 minutes instead of the current 3), for this game mode. I don't see anything else wrong with it.

I don't get those lower rewards, everyone seems to imply with this mode, as I do adjust to the mode and cap a point or two and thereby get approximatly the same c-bill reward, that I get from assault or skirmish matches, in the end.

Edited by Egomane, 08 October 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[GreyNovember]

I'm down with the idea of the cap points acting as a sort of repair/rearm facility.

So long as you shut down in the circle, it repairs whatever's still intact on your mech up to, say 75%.

Counterpoints, anyone?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

It is a combination of issues.

Cap times too long

Cap victory requirement is thus set too high for cap time

Too many capture points.

How to fix.

Reduce capture points to 2 on small maps a random 2 of the current zones is fine for variety.
Could make it 3 on larger maps.

Reduce capture time

It needs to be made into a tussle over the points as opposed to run around the map in a light to capture as many as we can.

Also include either re spawn or dropship mutator to this mode to make it a capture/ticket win style mode as seen in countless other games as long as you can win via team destruction that's how it will end 9/10 times.

[Joe Mallad]

warner2, on 08 October 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

From your list the one that best describes my experience is "Confused/disorganized combat".

It's like when when Terra Therma comes up (on any mode). It's probably going to be a bad game. We all know why. We just know that on average Terra Therma produces bad games.

Well I feel the same way about conquest. The fact is conquest gives you "other things to do" besides shooting and that attracts a certain kind of player. Perhaps tired of the straight-up combat you get on skirmish and assault, for example. Whatever, it doesn't matter. On average I feel there are more chaotic, disorganised games consisting of 12 solos running around like chickens without a head on conquest compared to the other game modes. That doesn't mean the other game modes can't be equally as bad I just find that each and every time I drop conquest I regret it and toggle it off again immediately.

I'm just more likely to get more of an organised team-effort from both sides in either of the other game modes (caveat: on the solo queue).

all this means is what some of us have been asking PGI for a very long time. We need in game VOIP. You're right, in conquest, the single guys that are on your team (not part of a multi-player drop) end up runnin off to try and cap or whatever they do and it leaves your team down men when the fighting starts. By in the other modes where its all about brawling, the in game VOIP isn't needed as much because everyone knows, move to the center of the map and fight it out lol. So yeah there is no real communication needed in the brawl it out modes as everyone just follows each other to the carnage at hand.

But if we had in game VOIP to use on modes like conquest, it would be a lot easier for your 4 or 6 man to say "hey lone wolves, we need to work as a team and do this or do that." Before they go running off. And sure, some still wont listen or play as a team.

That's why we also need ques where we don't have to play 12 vs 12 all the time. If my unit and I can drop as a 12 man, great! But most times we end up with around 8 guys on. Why can't we just play 8 vs 8 games? Why should we always have to worry... "Is the other 4 man unit or pugs going to work with us or do their own thing?"

[Screech]

I would lower the cap time to a 1/4 of what it is currently. It would allow the more fluid and not penalize people who actually have a desire to play the game as intended by not forcing them to sit in a box basically defenseless.

Having cap points that are so easily switched would then promote the idea of actually defending them and thus a role for the heavy/assaults.

Also wouldn't be a bad idea to cut cap points from 5 to 3 on the smaller maps.

[Voivode]

IMO Conquest is the best game mode. It forces movement into a match which is something Skirmish and, to a lesser extent, Assault sorely lack.

[Mawai]

Personally I see two flaws ...

1) Capping takes a long time (I agree it used to be too short ... but they made it so long that an assault on the other side of the map can usually respond to a cap if they are interested ... which usually they aren't)

2) The capping mechanic is boring and unrewarding. I often play a light or other fast mech ... in conquest this can often mean I end up capping in order to keep my team in the game in terms of cap ... trying to fully eliminate the other team while skipping capping is risky if the other team gets out to a cap advantage with 3 or 4 points under control. I've been in games where one side has lost despite killing 10 or 11 opponents and losing none ... because the other side capped early and their forces kept everyone else engaged long enough that it was impossible to reverse all the caps in time.

But ... the folks who run out and cap sit there bored to tears for minutes ... no cbill reward, no xp reward, no fun in playing even ... there is nothing in the conquest game mode that actually encourages or rewards team play to actually capture the resource extractors ... they often become subsidiary income in some sort of semi-skirmish match.

The game mode is poorly designed and needs a rework in terms of rewards and motivations to play it in my opinion.

Anyway ... just my 2 cents ...

[Jeb]

ok first off, how are shutdown mechs hurting Conquest modes???
If a mech shuts down, go cap everything and win... if they shut down because they are ahead in points that is a good tactic... their team played to get the most points, they did, now all they have to do is stay alive and keep that lead in points...



As far as capture time goes... it is slow, but you can't make it fast enough that a light can hop from node to node and cap before the bigger mechs get there... also the fact that you can't see how long before you actually cap the node is a problem... And I am not even sure how it works... if you leave the box, does it reset the capture timer to 0 and you have to start over? (if so, they need to change that so you see the timer on how long before your cap goes through, and if not, they should show on the capture bar how much more is needed to cap it)




My big problems are:
- Lack of proper rewards for Conquest mode... playing conquest how it should be played should be worth a lot more then playing for dmg/kills...

- People trying to play as Skirmish and ignoring the points... (this is what leads me to not play the mode... I would rather not have to worry about the points if I can't count on my team to pay attention to them)

Another thing people won't like, but I feel to get a proper conquest game going, you need respawn... if you don't have that, no one is gonna want to stay back and defend as they will just die and be out of the game when an enemy lance shows up to cap...

[Bront]

I like the mode. That said:
- Cap Points should have a sliding scale of how long they take to cap base on the size of the map. On small maps, it takes too long.
- Rewards for capping need to be higher. It's too easy to mostly ignore.
- Cap Points sometimes need better placement. Theta for example is easier to attack from one side than the other on Tourmaline.
- It's the only mode where the Capture Module is garunteed to be useful

[Foxfire]

1- Capture mechanics and time take too long
2- rewards for actually capturing and victory via capture is minuscule, making a victory due to capturing not really worthwhile for those who chase control points to make sure your side can win on points.
3- no variety in capture point styles. They are all the same platforms that provide the same protections and vulnerability. It would be great to have different structures, vehicles, and the like that provide different types of cover and exposed lanes for the attacker/defender.

4- address certain maps, such as Alpine Peak.

5- Having a scaled point generation system with differing capture times so that points that are generally safer will offer fewer points, take longer to capture, but have more environmental protection while those in more contested spots(typically theta on most maps) will be faster to cap, offer more points per tick, but with little environmental/structural protection.

[Mawai]

Egomane, on 08 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I see a point in slightly reducing capture times (maybe to 2 minutes instead of the current 3), for this game mode. I don't see anything else wrong with it.

I don't get those lower rewards, everyone seems to imply with this mode, as I do adjust to the mode and cap a point or two and thereby get approximatly the same c-bill reward, that I get from assault or skirmish matches, in the end.

You don't get nearly the experience reward.

In one of the 2 conquest matches I played yesterday ... I capped two points ... kept us in the cap game so we did not lose by cap points. I did a total of 32 points of damage and earned 332 xp ... 300 for the win and the piddly amount for the damage. There are no cbill rewards for sitting on a cap point ... no earnings for assists/kills/saviour kills ... there is no experience for sitting on a cap point ... no kills/assists/saviour kills/damage. By running around capping I hurt my personal earnings while helping the team win the game. Even in a light mech, I will often earn MORE cbills and xp in either skirmish or assault since I am in the battle and not running around saving the team from a cap loss.

I COULD just give up the cap game and play conquest-skirmish where you try and blow up the other team ... sometimes works but I have found that approach loses about 1 conquest game in 5 that you would have won ... due to losing on cap.

So ... rewards for a player standing bored to tears on a cap point for 3 or more minutes are non-existent ... no cbills, no xp and no motivation ... for the time they give up not being involved in the combat which is generally more fun anyway.

Everyone else in the match gets both the resource AND combat rewards ... cappers only end up with the resource rewards ... so if you think you are making the same as you would otherwise by capping ... I suspect you are mistaken.

[RealityCube]

Conquest is my favorite mode. If I'm pugging it is the only mode I will play. It forces people to do more than sit behind a rock or building and pop out to fire every few seconds. People actually move in. whenever I don't want to play pansywarrior, I select conquest only.

[Deathlike]

Egomane, on 08 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I don't get those lower rewards, everyone seems to imply with this mode, as I do adjust to the mode and cap a point or two and thereby get approximatly the same c-bill reward, that I get from assault or skirmish matches, in the end.

Math disagrees.

Just do the math based on your games.

I've calculated from my current stats that I'm actually earning 10k less than Assault+Skirmish. Just do # of C-bills accumulated divided by # of games played. The math doesn't lie.

It was JMan5 that pretty much proved this actual fact.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 October 2014 - 02:10 PM.

[Egomane]

Mawai, on 08 October 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

You don't get nearly the experience reward.

You get the same reward as in the other modes, when you find a balance between capping for c-bills and combat for XP (and the other half of the c-bills). Doing one thing exclusivly in this mode, will result in the described problems with lower rewards.

I also consider XP to be a minor problem. Most players are after the c-bills. XP is only important while you are mastering a new mech.

Deathlike, on 08 October 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

Math disagrees.

Just do the math based on your games.

I've calculated from my current stats that I'm actually earning 10k less than Assault+Skirmish. Just do # of C-bills accumulated divided by # of games played. The math doesn't lie.

It was JMan5 that pretty much proved this actual fact.

Assault - 976 - 482 - 490 - 0.98 - 649,491 - 95,248,157
Conquest - 751 - 423 - 328 - 1.29 - 510,878 - 78,867,398

Average for Assault = 97,590
Average for Conquest = 105,016

So my math disproves the one of JMan5. I'm actually earning more in conquest. In other words... it's anecdotal.

Edited by Egomane, 08 October 2014 - 02:24 PM.

[Screech]

Jeb, on 08 October 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

As far as capture time goes... it is slow, but you can't make it fast enough that a light can hop from node to node and cap before the bigger mechs get there...

Light mech can't hop from point to point if there is someone at the point though. By making points able to flip point it promotes leaving defenders. If you try to blob the defenders you get capped out because vulnerable points will get flipped faster.

But most importantly a significant portion of your game play will not be sitting in a box.

[Jman5]

Egomane, on 08 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I see a point in slightly reducing capture times (maybe to 2 minutes instead of the current 3), for this game mode. I don't see anything else wrong with it.

I don't get those lower rewards, everyone seems to imply with this mode, as I do adjust to the mode and cap a point or two and thereby get approximatly the same c-bill reward, that I get from assault or skirmish matches, in the end.

One big reason Conquest will reward lower on average has a lot to do with the fact that you get doubly punished for losing.

In Assault, Skirmish and Conquest, the team that loses do not get any salvage rewards for any mechs they killed. However, for a team that loses in Conquest they also get punished by receiving only 25% of the resource capture reward than the winning team.

So you wind up making significantly less for every loss (~50% of the time on average)

Lets take two identical scores from a Skirmish game and a best case scenario Conquest game and See how they match up with wins and losses.

Skirmish (win):

Played: 25,000
Kills (3): 12,900
Assist (6): 39,000
Component dest. (6): 12,600
Damage (500): 10,500
Salvage Bonus: 13,000

Total: 113,000

Conquest (win):

Played: 25,000
Kills (3): 6,300
Assist (6): 19,200
Component dest (6): 6,600
Damage (500): 10,500
Resource Capture (750): 37,500
Salvage: 13,000

Total: 118,100

So, best case scenario where your main money maker (resources) tick to completion, you can make a little more IF YOU WIN.

Now lets compare those scores from a loss


Skirmish (loss):

Played: 25,000
Kills (3): 12,900
Assist (6): 39,000
Component dest. (6): 12,600
Damage (500): 10,500
Salvage Bonus: 0

Total: 100,000

Conquest (loss):

Played: 25,000
Kills (3): 6,300
Assist (6): 19,200
Component dest (6): 6,600
Damage (500): 10,500
Resource Capture (749): 9,362
Salvage: 0

Total: 76,962

So in a near optimal scenario, your getting 5,000 cbills advantage for wins, but taking a 23,000 cbill hit for losses. You'd need something like a 5:1 W/L ratio to make up the difference.

PGI needs to add a new reward into Conquest or make resource capture reward equal regardless of win or loss. I personally would like to see a "First Capture" team bonus reward added. So the first time your team captures a point your team gets a flat cap bonus.

Edited by Jman5, 08 October 2014 - 02:24 PM.