31 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

IMO...

• Speed up cap so it's not a joke
  
• Put bases further apart
  
• Lances should spawn further apart. 4 vs 4 fights should be almost unavoidable, it's the most fun part about Conquest and the one thing that sets it apart from normal team deathmatch.

[Elizander]

Alistair Winter, on 09 October 2014 - 02:55 AM, said:

IMO...

• Speed up cap so it's not a joke
  
• Put bases further apart
  
• Lances should spawn further apart. 4 vs 4 fights should be almost unavoidable, it's the most fun part about Conquest and the one thing that sets it apart from normal team deathmatch.

Spawning 1 friendly vs 1 enemy lance close together with 3 sets of these spread out might be interesting.

[Marmon Rzohr]

I think the first thing they need to do is buff the rewards for capping and recapping points. They should be at least on par with kills, IMO. Upping the resource bonus you get at the end of the match might also be a good idea.

And most cap point/spawn point layouts need a drastic revision as on most maps going for caps drastically reduces your chances of winning the match. This is also evident from the fact that in a great majority of conquest matches nobody actually FIGHTS for the cap locations. Most of them are positioned so that it's much easier to get to a nearby location with heavy cover and simply destroy anyone trying to cap from safety, then cap yourself.

When people realize this they simply avoid capping altogether because you can only do it as an endgame strategy or once there are no enemy mechs to threaten you ability to cap.


As it is right now only wolfpacks of light mechs can play actual conquest.

Another suggestion would to give holding caps actual benefits, like a bomber strike, a strong AMS battery, a free repair of 10% armor once per mech etc.

Alistair Winter, on 09 October 2014 - 02:55 AM, said:

IMO...

• Speed up cap so it's not a joke
  
• Put bases further apart
  
• Lances should spawn further apart. 4 vs 4 fights should be almost unavoidable, it's the most fun part about Conquest and the one thing that sets it apart from normal team deathmatch.

IMHO, speeding up caps is a horrible idea as it encourages solo capping, which is pretty much how conquest works right now. Bases should be designed so that you need multiple mechs to cap them, so that is ok. The problem is that in most cases you don't really have any incentive or need to cap them. In fact it mostly loses games to rush caps. In other words the game mode need to be designed so that multiple players will want to cap them, and not just "because it's conquest".


Look at Counter Strike's DE mode. You could play it like a death match with no problem, but players actively attempt to place and defuse the bomb because it gives them a gameplay edge over simply fighting it out. That is good design.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 09 October 2014 - 03:23 AM.

[Bluttrunken]

I don't like the idea of Respawns because the game plays nicely as it is.

[shintakie]

Vassago Rain, on 08 October 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

How to improve conquest.

1) up the income.

Done.

This. All this. Well, not the done part but the increased income. Its pathetic how few cbills you get for actually doin the objective in Conquest (and Assault!). As a Cicada pilot I'm usually runnin around with a couple other lights cappin in Conquest. Get into the occasional fight, but I try to avoid it when possible. At the end of the match my income is abysmal though. I get the same amount of cbills from resources as everyone else, but they get damage/kills/assists money as well.

Its like Assault in that the people actually doin the objective get shafted on money while the people who derp around in the certain get rewarded. Its garbage and shouldn't be that way.

On top of that, super constructive criticism, cap points absolutely need to be looked at. Crimson Strait and HPG both waste tons of space because 3 of the cap points are clustered around a pretty small area while the other 2 are off in the middle of nowhere. HPG has all 5 clustered in one small area and waste the other 50% of the map. The small maps just really don't work all that well in conquest at all.

Alpine is the only conquest map that really works because the points are really well placed, they're spread out, and you can't just blast away at one point while sittin on another.

But seriously, increase the rewards before you do anythin. Not just the resource rewards, but give rewards for actually cappin.

[Triordinant]

It's not the rewards, or the lack of respawns, or starting positions, or cap times, etc. Some people just won't play a game mode that has capping in it and won't abide being forced to do so.

[shintakie]

Triordinant, on 09 October 2014 - 04:27 AM, said:

It's not the rewards, or the lack of respawns, or starting positions, or cap times, etc. Some people just won't play a game mode that has capping in it and won't abide being forced to do so.

Well, yeah. However capping is not, and probably will never be, the easiest way to win on conquest. Most of my games end in caps on conquest, but thats because I usually get lucky enough to drop with people who cap with me. However the vast majority of conquest games end in giant shooting galleries where one team wipes out the other. Assault is like that too.

Its why the game modes feel all samey. You aren't given any incentive to actually do the match objective. In fact, doin the match objective is actually a detriment to yourself because you intentionally nerf the amount of money you'll take in by goin after the objectives instead of joinin the shooting gallery. Its even worse in assault because you actively need to worry about turrets and the only reward you get is a pitiful amount of xp if you do cap. At least in conquest you get money for resources, even if cappin it doesn't actually give you anythin extra.

[meteorol]

A "conquest" gamemode that can be won alot faster by killing 12 enemies than by actually playing the objective will always stay TDM with a second win condition, no matter what you are trying to make out of it.

Edited by meteorol, 09 October 2014 - 05:36 AM.

[Haipyng]

Alistair Winter, on 09 October 2014 - 02:55 AM, said:

IMO...

• Speed up cap so it's not a joke
  
• Put bases further apart
  
• Lances should spawn further apart. 4 vs 4 fights should be almost unavoidable, it's the most fun part about Conquest and the one thing that sets it apart from normal team deathmatch.

The time to cap would be tough to increase. Too fast and lights just move point to point staying ahead and bypassing heavy mechs trying to catch up. It should encourage small skirmishes at points, and it sometimes does...when people play the mode and not just deathmatch.

Conquest is about as balanced as they can make it. It becomes a blast when you get people actually trying to play the map and moving points instead of everyone running for Theta and making it a skirmish. The trouble is the rewards system doesn't give enough to make it a worthwhile. Much more Cbills and XP to be made killing other mechs. I totally get why they do this, so the abusers don't use it to grind Cbills and XP. Not sure there is a way to do this that would not be prone to abuse.

[Gyrok]

Here are the deficiencies, as I see them, in conquest.

1. Caps take too long. If you could completely flip a cap in 90-120 seconds, would be much better.

2. The positioning is wonky on many maps. Some they are scattered, some they are far apart. I think cap points should be located around terrain that makes them better to hold. Having every map with multiple exposed caps makes things tedious.

3. Placing them too close encourages fighting it out. Placing them too far makes fighting it out more attractive. If objectives are going to be the main focus, make that so.

4. Rewards for conquest are consistently low. Well below average for the other 2 modes. Capping for resources should provide a bigger boost at end game. If winning conquest by caps meant more cbills than any other mode by a fair margin, people would play it more IMHO.

5. It still does not promote role warfare in any meaningful sense. Sure lights do the lion's share of capping, but everyone else plays it like skirmish.

6. Final point, capping should have more incentivized rewards on conquest. Almost like a cbill bonus for time spent capping, or something similar, would drive more players to stand around if they are earning rewards.

Edited by Gyrok, 09 October 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

meteorol, on 09 October 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

A "conquest" gamemode that can be won alot faster by killing 12 enemies than by actually playing the objective will always stay TDM with a second win condition, no matter what you are trying to make out of it.

Which is why I think respawn is a must for conquest.

[WarHippy]

GRiPSViGiL, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

So most people hate conquest. I love it due to being a BF tryhard through and through but I don't necessarily love it the way we do it in MWO.

Other than cap time conquest didn't bother me that much other than being stuck in slow boat when it popped up.

GRiPSViGiL, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

I am not so worried about the group queue because you can't always balance some of the units out there based on the skill they possess in the first place. However, the solo queue showed a vast improvement in match quality due to the 10/7 changes to Matchmaking to only then be ripped away by the whiners who don't like conquest. Fair enough. Though if the MM can balance teams like it did the solo queue I definitely want the group queue matched in the same manner. So let's take the time to really rework Conquest so that it is a valid playable mode for most people and we can get the better matchmaking process put back into place.

The MM changes in the patch had almost no effect on solo queue so you either had some sort of placebo effect going on, or you are significantly exaggerating the improvement you saw. I for one saw no improvement, and more trolls. A rework of conquest may help it to become more popular, but it wasn't the only reason people hated the change. I for one refuse to play skirmish, and will continue to fight the vote system in any form.

GRiPSViGiL, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

If any mode could use respawn it is conquest. Dropship mode with Rush or Conquest objectives are something I could sink my teeth into. So that may be a discussion point for ways to improve it or make it more enjoyable for others. I think everyone can admit the cap timers are really to long to allow for much of a dynamic game. Best way to win currently is to blob up and brawl it out on dispersed smaller enemy groups to then clean up or cap. When it didn't take 3 mins to cap I loved conquest and you had plenty of opportunities for some interesting skirmishes anywhere on the map between points. If we can get back to that I think we can get to where it needs to be.

Respawning is not something that has been a very popular topic around here because it is generally unwanted. Dropship mode seems mostly ok for most people, but any form of unlimited or significant amounts of respawns is simply asking for an angry mob. If you want to improve conquest lower the cap time like you said, but also make it worthwhile to cap.

GRiPSViGiL, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

I realize not everyone wants to play certain maps or game modes but I don't have any sympathy for those who wish to limit certain parts of the game because they can't or refuse to adapt. If your unit has to defend a certain planet with a certain ecosystem then deal with it.

Its interesting you are willing to jump down others throats for "limiting certain parts of the game", but are perfectly ok with limiting other players choice. Hypocrisy much? As for maps that should never be something that people get to vote on or black list, but I see game modes differently. It has nothing to do with adapting as you and your ilk try to insinuate, but rather a question of what is enjoyable.

GRiPSViGiL, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Please add your suggestions and let's get this ironed out so we can get the better MM back.

It will not come back, nor should it. However, all of the game modes could use some work to make them better, and then maybe people of their own free will will start to select all game modes and give you whatever imagined improvement you are looking for.