163 replies to this topic

[Powder Puff Pew Pew]

Abisha, on 10 October 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

all good and all, but what do i spend my C-bills on?.

Popcorn and Porn.

[Mothykins]

Also, Fix the dang capture points on Alpine. Using less than 50% of the map is really silly.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Cavale, on 11 October 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Also, Fix the dang capture points on Alpine. Using less than 50% of the map is really silly.

That was done in response to assault pilots complaining about how long it took to get anywhere. I think somewhere in between the two extremes would be good. It's just a hard map for conquest because of the low amount of cover and the overall design

[Zyllos]

One thing I would like to see is a remap of the capture borders from small squares to terrain outlining.

Open areas would have large capture borders while tight capture points will be much smaller.

This allows for movement in and around a capture zone that makes more sense, not forcing players to crowd around a capture point.

[CDLord HHGD]

Cavale, on 11 October 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Also, Fix the dang capture points on Alpine. Using less than 50% of the map is really silly.

That's what I said!

[Goose]

Does no one remember how them Alpine points where asked for, 'cause Skirmish hadn't been invented yet?

It does need to be changed, but give Teh Devs some credit …

[Ashnod]

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.

I absolutely loved conquest back when I could flip a point by myself without having to stand there for the 5-6 minutes being useless... Slowing it down killed the mode for me and IMO reduced available tactics, since capping takes to long and really isn't viable because of it.

[Shredhead]

Goose, on 11 October 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Does no one remember how them Alpine points where asked for, 'cause Skirmish hadn't been invented yet?

It does need to be changed, but give Teh Devs some credit …

True, but nobody asked to put all the cap points within spitting range.

[Johnny Z]

Xeven, on 10 October 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

I'll pass till you can give us objectives that are not Arcadish. Not much in MWO that gives you that nostalgic felling of being in a Battle Tech universe and your current Conquest mode is as far from making you feel like your not in Tanks online or what ever.

QFT

Like I said to many times before they have the mech in Mechwarrior. I hope after faction wars are in they start working on the rest.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 October 2014 - 02:38 PM.

[Mokou]

Quote

~15K higher per match average than Assault and Skirmish.

OH MY GHOD OH MY GHOD!! 15K REALY?! WHAT A GENEROSITY! I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT!

Edited by Mokou, 11 October 2014 - 03:59 PM.

[TexAce]

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.

This:

Helsbane, on 10 October 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

My biggest issue with Conquest wasn't that it paid less overall, but that there are not real rewards for playing the mode in any other fashion but deathball. There are no rewards for flipping a node. No rewards for defending a node. No rewards for finishing with four or more nodes. Just no rewards for playing it as Conquest.

Also, Alpine's nodes need to be put back where they were originally. Now that we don't have nine assault mechs per team, having the nodes further apart makes far more sense and promotes fast moving fights at varied locations on the map.

Also, cap times are waaayyy too long. Three minutes to flip a node solo? Seriously, node flips should be faster.

And, have you considered increasing resource points based on number of nodes controlled? Yes, it's borrowing a concept from Arathi Basin in WoW, but if it encourages node control in a game mode based on, of all things, node control, wouldn't that help?

best post ever

[Dhalrin]

I like the idea of shorter cap times.
While you're at it, can you have a good, hard look at the cap accelerator module? 15% faster cap times is a joke compared to what other modules do.

[Tarzilman]

Russ, honestly, this is some bad timing for this kind of news.
I'm one of the big YES-sayer in the last poll and have had heated discussions about the pros and contras of the new voting system. The argument that was mentioned the most was the poorly reward system in conquest mode.
Now you come along with this.
Don't get me wrong, I am very happy and will play more rounds on conquest mode again. At latest when the new capping times will come out.
But playing in the grp queue is still a mess and it has been much better with the voting system. I didn't understand why you put this on solo queue anyway since it is very good at its actual state.
I love your new information politics, but maybe you reconsider the priorities of some important facts before it comes to the next voting desaster.

Best Regards

Edited by Tarzilman, 12 October 2014 - 02:03 AM.

[Wolfways]

Russ Bullock, on 10 October 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I am guessing that during the game mode voting situation most people didn't notice that game rewards are much higher now in conquest.

In fact since Tuesday Conquest is giving out the highest per game average of C-Bills.

~15K higher per match average than Assault and Skirmish.

Just saying.

We get rewards?

Honestly I've never took any notice of match earnings

[Foxfire]

There are two things that I see.

The first is the cap times. Speeding up the time is a great direction.

The second is that there is no real incentive to win via points over destruction. While it is nice that you boosted what you get from damage, assists, and the like... Those still leave the people who end up flipping points and away from combat out to dry. There really needs to be an emphasis placed on victory via the mode specific condition over boosting combat only based rewards.

As a nice to have, I think that it would be nice to have tiered capture points where those that are in riskier areas generate more points than the base side points.

The idea thrown out earlier in this thread of adding more control points and making them destructable is interesting as well. Doing so would allow for more variety in the matches which wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Jhaele]

Some I am sure would consider me to be a masochist but I like Conquest and try to drop almost exclusively in it.

Cap timers do need to be changed. They are far to slow right now. Having said that I have no desire to see them shortened to a large degree. I do not wish to see this game mode changed to having a few solo lights running around and capping points so quickly it will look like a strobe light on the map. All the weight classes need to be involved.

Earlier in the thread someone suggested basing cap times on the amount of tonnage at the node. The more weight the faster the flip. That would work for me but if there are problems then basing the cap time on the number of mechs actually capping the node would work as well although not as well as the former suggestion.

I also noticed the c-bill increase which is pretty sweet really. The new reward notification brought that to my attention very quickly. Good job on both accounts Russ, thank you.

**Edit** I need to lrn2type x2

Edited by Jhaele, 12 October 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[Creovex]

Irony....

Conquest cap timers were changed orignally because there were very few (maybe 4) modules back in the day and EVERYONE who played conquest had the "Capture Accelerator" module equipped.

The fact the module system is getting love and variety (getting way better) and nobody runs the capture accelerator module anymore is a big reason Conquest takes forever.

Russ.... if you lower the cap time please remove the capture accelerator module so we don't continue one extreme to the next on Conquest.

[Helsbane]

Creovex, on 12 October 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Irony....

Conquest cap timers were changed orignally because there were very few (maybe 4) modules back in the day and EVERYONE who played conquest had the "Capture Accelerator" module equipped.

The fact the module system is getting love and variety (getting way better) and nobody runs the capture accelerator module anymore is a big reason Conquest takes forever.

Russ.... if you lower the cap time please remove the capture accelerator module so we don't continue one extreme to the next on Conquest.

No, the reason the cap timers were altered was because back before the rule of three, teams (both solo queue and group) were very heavy on assault chassis. These huge, ponderous behemoths cried rivers of tears because it 'took too long' to respond to bases in Conquest and Assault being capped. They eventually got their way, and cap timers were altered to allow them a week to get back to base.

[White Bear 84]

Powder Puff Pew Pew, on 11 October 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Popcorn and Porn.

Corn porn?

[Creovex]

Helsbane, on 12 October 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

No, the reason the cap timers were altered was because back before the rule of three, teams (both solo queue and group) were very heavy on assault chassis. These huge, ponderous behemoths cried rivers of tears because it 'took too long' to respond to bases in Conquest and Assault being capped. They eventually got their way, and cap timers were altered to allow them a week to get back to base.

There were several changes to cap time since I started way back in CB. The most significant one I recall WAS the cap accelerators release.... The extension for the assaults never felt as much of a time increase as the the module. Module change was what, near end of CB? Either way, I suggest we remove the module incase cap times get lowered.