163 replies to this topic

[Mekwarrior]

I liked the original capture times, I have't played since it was changed due to the high boredom level.

Now heavy mechs have 2 other game modes so why not put conquest capture time back to the original.

If it was back to the original capture speed I'd definitely start playing again.

Edited by Mekwarrior, 12 October 2014 - 07:58 PM.

[Scratx]

cdlord, on 11 October 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

I think the relative map size plus location of the capture points, plus the average speed of a mech in Conquest is all a factor. Especially with Alpine, those capture points are way too close together.

Spread the capture points back out to their original positions (I think Alpine is the only one or the one affected the most drastically) and make the capture time dependent on map size and average distance between capture points. Forest colony/River City would be the quickest. Alpine/Tournaline/HPG would be the slowest.

Uh, I must politely say "Oh Gods Please Don't" to the Alpine reshuffling. It plays great, in comparison to Assault/Skirmish, which both amount to "Let's take/hold the H10 mountain top". (if I recall correct coords)

As it stands, in Conquest, that mountain top is not a strategically, or tactically, useful position to take unless you want to defend Gamma. However, if you're defending Gamma, you aren't fighting for the other four points, which means you're defaulting the match. The fighting around those 4 points is usually a lot of fun and the terrain does allow for the usage of tactics, including snipers, indirect LRM fire and good ol' fashioned brawling.

Bringing the cap points all over the map again will just make it all about that f'ing mountain again, while the light mechs maybe go around capping. Please don't screw Conquest on Alpine.

[Pjwned]

Cool, that's a step towards improving a crappy grind to build more mechs, still needs more to make a real difference though.

[Sean von Steinike]

Russ Bullock, on 10 October 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I am also doing some research into maybe changing how fast you can flip the resource points - some feedback on how when they were slowed down it changed their desire to play the mode.

Changing it for assulat made sense, but not so much for Conquest. It definitely needs to flip faster on conquest.

[BladeXXL]

15K ... so playing 3x conquest and I can buy an additional UAV! eeem... ok... emmm.

Killing and assist rewards being aligned with other modes will provide a new game expirience: Noone will play conquest in conquest mode - it will even more end up in kill the opponent!

How about giving more rewards for capping? Especially for the time used standing in the cap zone.
For now the whole team is rewarded the same even someone never touched any cap zone - where some of the others spend 5 minutes just standing around and bring a win for the team - not being rewarded for this and having no chance to get any kill/assist rewards!!!

[Jeb]

so there is even more reason to play that mode as skirmish...

Conquest needs incentives to get people to try to win by points, not killing the other team... killing the other team should be a side effect of capping / defending resource nodes...

[Troutmonkey]

Russ Bullock, on 10 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

I am also looking to change the cap time in conquest for a near future patch.

Originally it was around 13 seconds for someone to flip a base - a long time ago it was moved to 50 seconds.

Based on some feedback during the game mode voting discussion - I am considering going to a 30 second flip time.

Those are all times for a single mech without cap accelerator - a split in the middle of old and new and try that out.

Mix that with the extra rewards - it might breathe more life into conquest.

Thank you! I've been posting about the 3 minute timer for a while now (since the change) and I have no idea why it's taken so long to convince people it's worth changing. 13s might be too short, but I think that 30 seconds is still too long. I'd personally go for 20s or so.

While you're at it, please make the "neutral" phase of capping much much shorter than the other cap times. You get no feedback while standing around being otherwise useless to your team.

Finally, sizeable rewards rewards for playing objectives is a must. It literally pays better to lose while fighting then to do minimal fighting while capping objectives. This needs to change, and I'm glad you're looking into it.

[Karenai]

Giving away more money for a gamemode clearly shows how unpopular it is. Here go play with the fat kid, I will buy you both ice cream.

[Oni74]

A bit off-topic here but I figured Russ is paying attention to this thread so here it goes:

Sorry if this is a repeat of someone else's idea. I did not read any of the old threads that might have brought this up. If you happen to be the one who came up with this idea first, "great minds think alike"

I believe conquest needs some spice.

Here's what I recommend:

• change the 5th/middle resource collector to a defended mobile HQ that cannot be capped unless your side has at least 2 resource collectors.
  
• Mobile HQ itself does not grant resource points.
  
• Double the resource collection rate of the team that possesses the Mobile HQ.
  
• If your team no longer controls at least 2 resource collectors while controlling the Mobile HQ, you lose the resource collection rate boost.

The outcome of this change would be:

• Increase in strategic options
  
• Improvements in role warfare

There are probably some additional things you can do. Please feel free to add to this if you think this is a good idea.

Edited by Onij74, 13 October 2014 - 06:30 AM.

[Creovex]

Honestly, I think conquest needs respawns.... It works for Battlefield... Always has...

[GalmOne]

I also think 30 seconds might not be too much, a start of course, but a full 1 and a half minute to cap a single point is a lot for battles that last less than 8 minutes, while that might change if you "push" players for capturing flags and thus lower further the flip time

Currently playing the objective in conquest is truly suffering, as a light pilot, unless i have a 160km/h mech i will spend more than half the match capping points without getting no reward whatsoever and a big risk of dieing while the big boys have their way in the middle enjoying kills and assists. I believe that if you gave every mech in the influence area a good 15k c-bills for flipping a flag to neutral and 15k c-bills for full ownership would probably soften things out for people that play the objective and might create more competition for flags in general

Like it or not it's GREED that drives mechwarriors around be it either for battle or for money

[Khobai]

Upping the rewards for conquest is a good start towards fixing the gamemode.

But capping still takes WAY too long. The cap time needs to be lowered to half of what it is now. It shouldnt take 3 minutes to cap a point. The game is half over by the time you cap a point and it makes capping really frustrating.

Conversely, you dont want points to capture too quickly or your team cant respond to an enemy mech capturing a point. So ideally it should take 30-45 seconds to capture a neutral point (60-90 seconds to capture a fully controlled enemy point. Or about half the time it takes to capture a point now.

Quote

Honestly, I think conquest needs respawns.... It works for Battlefield... Always has...

If respawns were added to conquest I would suggest just revamping the whole gamemode and turn it into a gamemode with a reinforcement ticket system.

Each team would start with ~3000 tickets. When a mech dies you lose tickets equal to that mechs tonnage and that mech would then respawn. Controlling nodes would cause the enemy team to bleed tickets at the rate of 1 per second for each node your team controls.

Edited by Khobai, 13 October 2014 - 12:00 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Scratx, on 12 October 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Uh, I must politely say "Oh Gods Please Don't" to the Alpine reshuffling. It plays great, in comparison to Assault/Skirmish, which both amount to "Let's take/hold the H10 mountain top". (if I recall correct coords)

As it stands, in Conquest, that mountain top is not a strategically, or tactically, useful position to take unless you want to defend Gamma. However, if you're defending Gamma, you aren't fighting for the other four points, which means you're defaulting the match. The fighting around those 4 points is usually a lot of fun and the terrain does allow for the usage of tactics, including snipers, indirect LRM fire and good ol' fashioned brawling.

Bringing the cap points all over the map again will just make it all about that f'ing mountain again, while the light mechs maybe go around capping. Please don't screw Conquest on Alpine.

If you don't want it to be all about that mountain... then don't go there. There's no point in playing conquest on alpine when all the bases are within monkey poo throwing distance. My unit has identified several aready that change the dynamic of combat on that map well away from that mountain.

[Mawai]

Russ Bullock, on 10 October 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

You now get the same amount of Cbills per kill/assist etc as any other game mode - so basically if it does end in a cap victory you can end up getting the 37,500 on top of the ability to earn the same rewards everywhere else.

It's good that you have increased Conquest rewards. It might get more people playing it. However, my concern with Conquest was the lack of rewards for actually capping ... though this might be alleviated by a somewhat faster timer.

I played in one conquest match during the voting period where I came away with very little xp and cbills since I spent the time standing and capping ... keeping my side in the cap game ... we ended up winning by eliminating the other team but they had focused on capping and if we had ignored it we would likely have lost. But it was the most boring and unrewarding match I have played in months despite the essential role the couple of folks who spent their time capping played in the match outcome ... so I had been hoping for rewards to encourage capping in conquest ... however, adding combat rewards evens the field between the game modes and means that folks will be more likely to go for a combat win with any resource rewards considered a bonus.


P.S. The reason I didn't notice is because I don't play conquest and if the information isn't in the patch notes ... which I do read ... then I am unlikely to find out about it ... so it is hardly surprising.

Edited by Mawai, 13 October 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Jabilo]

Conquest is my favourite game mode.

Time to flip points needs to be quicker. When I am solo flipping a point I go to make a cup of tea. This is not hyperbole I actually DO have time to make a cup of tea and often do. (English people make tea even while meching).

Maybe make cap accelerator more effective. Seeing as mech slots are now more valuable (most mechs have one less) anyone who makes a sacrifice to take it should get more bang for their buck.

Also, we used to get groups of lights joining together to just grief by roaming the points in a wolf pack. Now we have a true solo queue we should be able to lower the cap time without this happening (at least in pug queue).

Conquest has the POTENTIAL to be the best game mode as it introduces a tactical element and could be a place for role warfare to shine. Right now it is unpopular which shows it needs some thoughtful attention.

There needs to be a reason for the leader to say

"Alpha lance, split off and take Gamma!".

Right now if this happens the other team just rolls over the other 8 players in the classic "ball of death" - defeating the entire purpose of the mode. Too few games end in conquest victory. No wonder people see it as pointless.

How about neutral turrets on the points that you can capture and turn to your advantage? If you destroy the turrets and cap then the turrets rebuild after an appropriate length of time?

And we need rewards for the time spent capping. While it is nice you have addressed earning for the mode as a whole, you are still giving all the cash to those holding the line and not to those who spend the game flipping points (i.e. the whole point of conquest).

How about maps especially designed for good conquest play, designed uniquely for the mode? They could feature one of the points in your teams "fortress" with turrets etc. and other points on the main map. Some of these could be a good distance away, to encourage lances of lights supported by mediums to split off while the heavys and assaults brawl over the bases and middle points.

I am just spit balling but you need more than a few C Bills to bring back the love for conquest - you need a bit of imagination!

Edited by Jabilo, 13 October 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Docta Pain]

Why is this posted in General Discussion instead of Announcements? The communication is so fractured. Please announce things in a more appropriate mode.

And... the amount of c-bill reward(ed) challenges that are needed just to feed the Module Monster is ridiculous, do something to improve the grind in ALL modes, not just one that people think isn't as fun to play.

[Kell Commander]

Russ,

I like that you are acknowledging that there is a problem with conquest itself being that people don't want to play that specific game mode, and every time is comes up while I have all 3 modes selected, it just devolves into skirmish/assault anyway.

Here's what I think though. A multi-capture point game mode just DOES NOT FIT this game. Moving towards community warfare, this game is supposed to be about strategic battles with specific MILITARY objectives the each team is supposed to accomplish. Things that skirmish (and assault to a lesser extent since that mode is just skirmish with turrets anyway) achieves with the "There is an enemy force, eliminate it." Something that your attack/defend mode will achieve with one team "Hold this position at all costs" while the other team "We must take that base if we are to take this planet."

Now what does conquest actually accomplish? Bringing a Call of Duty game mode into Mechwarrior and nothing more. The fun that gets drawn from this game mode in COD is also completely removed by the inability to respawn, making fighting for those wells worthless. Realistically, if a full on battle broke out around oil drills like that the workers would scatter to the wind and not give 2 shits about who gets how much oil as long as they at least survived the giant death machines laying waste to each other outside. It's mush less "Well this guy stood here for this long so they get this much oil" and more "That one is still moving and pointing those really big guns at me. They get all the oil."

I understand what you're trying to do and the need for more game modes, but in my opinion this mode just does not fit this game.

[Mekwarrior]

I think conquest could be fun again if they reset the capture times back to the original or faster and get rid of any balance mechanic that makes a team have to have a mix of light + heavy, assault etc, mechs. Conquest could be fun with mostly light mechs and some faster medium and heavy ones.

Edited by Mekwarrior, 14 October 2014 - 12:06 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Don't care how much money it gives. I will never play conquest willingly. If forced i will just eject.

[speedy mechanic]

Ok I got a couple ideas to increase people wanting to play conquest mode: 1: The "flip" time 100% needs to be shorter (30 seconds sound ok to me) and 2: Have a reward for being in the cap zone to encourage conquest play style not skirmish. For example let's say it's 60 seconds to uncap a point from full with 1 mech, my idea would be you get 1000 c bills per 5 seconds for being in the cap area. Just un capping would net you a nice 12k bonus, not absurd but pretty nice. Also the bonus would be less if more capped it faster due to being in the cap transition less.