14 replies to this topic

[Vandul]

So, a fair amount of interest/focus on Conquest.

I have a sneaking suspicion that were seeing some HEAT mapping in preparation for CW.

Conspiracy Theory or Plausible Explanation?

Thoughts?

[VanillaG]

The focus on Conquest has more to do with making people hate it less so they can bring back the soft limits on game type. Karl Berg has mentioned that hard limits on game modes are just not sustainable in the long term when we get more game modes. Increasing the C-Bill payout makes it pay the best and hopefully the reward tweaks will increase the XP payout. Once Conquest pays out similar to the other modes they might be able to bring back in the soft limits.

[Angel of Annihilation]

VanillaG, on 15 October 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

The focus on Conquest has more to do with making people hate it less so they can bring back the soft limits on game type. Karl Berg has mentioned that hard limits on game modes are just not sustainable in the long term when we get more game modes. Increasing the C-Bill payout makes it pay the best and hopefully the reward tweaks will increase the XP payout. Once Conquest pays out similar to the other modes they might be able to bring back in the soft limits.

Actually I had the most fun on the Conquest challenge over the rest of them simply because while the goal was primarily to kill the enemy, it still had the tendency to split up the blob which made for some great small scale blobs of 2-5 mechs going at it on different places on the map.

The issue with Conquest is that it is fundamentally flawed. Instead of having Capture points that you cap and move on from, instead you should actually have to cap and hold them only earning points while you actively have a friendly mech on that point. This would make it so you had to spread out your mechs to hold multiple points simultaneously in order to win.

[Mystere]

VanillaG, on 15 October 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

The focus on Conquest has more to do with making people hate it less so they can bring back the soft limits on game type. Karl Berg has mentioned that hard limits on game modes are just not sustainable in the long term when we get more game modes. Increasing the C-Bill payout makes it pay the best and hopefully the reward tweaks will increase the XP payout. Once Conquest pays out similar to the other modes they might be able to bring back in the soft limits.

Frankly, I'd rather have the original random game mode selection than the hopefully never to return voting system. At least for the former the probability of playing that zombie-infested cesspool of a game mode named "Skirmish" is proportional to the number of available game modes.

[Bilbo]

I had to disable skirmish so that I'd even have a chance of dropping in a conquest match.

[VanillaG]

Viktor Drake, on 15 October 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

The issue with Conquest is that it is fundamentally flawed. Instead of having Capture points that you cap and move on from, instead you should actually have to cap and hold them only earning points while you actively have a friendly mech on that point. This would make it so you had to spread out your mechs to hold multiple points simultaneously in order to win.

The issue with Conquest is that you do not get rewarded for capturing and flipping points. If your team won and you spent the entire match capping and flipping points you would only get 425 XP and the base win award plus resource bonus. You would get more C-Bills and XP if you fought instead of just capping and flipping.

To make it more rewarding you could treat capping and flipping like kills and assists. For the sake of argument lets say that each cap point is worth 130xp broken out by 50 points to drain/fill and 30 points to flip. So to turn a fully filled enemy capture point by your self you would get 50xp for draining, 30xp for flipping, and 50xp for filling up to max. If more than 1 mech is involved they are rewarded based on how long they helped. So 2 mechs flipping and filling to max would each get 65xp each. The amount of XP available is based on the status of the point. If the enemy point is only 10% filled, the flipping mech would only get 5xp for draining and potentially 80xp more if they filled to max. If they stop short of filling to the max they get rewarded based on the percentage filled.

Scaling the reward based on amount of time spent flipping and filling gives additional xp and cbills for actually playing the game mode. You could do the same type of rewards for Assault game mode where people are given XP and CBill for turret destruction proportional to damage that they did to turret. Currently only the person who laid the final blow is given any xp.

These changes would actually flip the current modes around and Skirmish would pay out the least because you have no additional ways to earn except for killing mechs.

[Gralzeim]

So more like King of the Hill with multiple hills, Viktor? Yeah that sounds pretty great actually. I'd get behind that. I think capture points as it is would work better with faster robots, like Xteel was. (Yeah, it had some slower things, but they were still fast compared to MWO's big guys)

Edit: VanillaG's suggestions could work too. I too dislike the lack of proper rewards for playing Conquest's objective rather than playing it like deathmatch with an additional way to lose if people forget the cap points.

Edited by Gralzeim, 15 October 2014 - 07:58 AM.

[WarHippy]

VanillaG, on 15 October 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

The focus on Conquest has more to do with making people hate it less so they can bring back the soft limits on game type. Karl Berg has mentioned that hard limits on game modes are just not sustainable in the long term when we get more game modes. Increasing the C-Bill payout makes it pay the best and hopefully the reward tweaks will increase the XP payout. Once Conquest pays out similar to the other modes they might be able to bring back in the soft limits.

Conquest was not the only reason people didn't like the soft choice setup, and for me conquest was the least of my concerns.

That being said I would like to see some changes to conquest. For instance lower cap time would help, as would increased rewards. However, those alone would not be enough to make the mode more interesting. I would like to see more importance put on capping points. You could do this by making it so that the team at the end of the match with the most points wins; before you finish off that last enemy mech you better make sure your team is in the lead for points or you may cause your team to lose. A similar system could be adopted for assault where winning by cap is worth more than just killing the enemy team, however a loss by cap should be penalized. This gives people motivation to both attack and defend while not taking away the option to just duke it out.

[Mawai]

Viktor Drake, on 15 October 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Actually I had the most fun on the Conquest challenge over the rest of them simply because while the goal was primarily to kill the enemy, it still had the tendency to split up the blob which made for some great small scale blobs of 2-5 mechs going at it on different places on the map.

The issue with Conquest is that it is fundamentally flawed. Instead of having Capture points that you cap and move on from, instead you should actually have to cap and hold them only earning points while you actively have a friendly mech on that point. This would make it so you had to spread out your mechs to hold multiple points simultaneously in order to win.

Just to point out ... I think that earning points only while occupied would simply kill the game mode entirely. Folks would blob up and kill the other players ... anyone splitting their team to harvest multiple points would tend to lose.

In my opinion, to make conquest better you need a somewhat faster turn over in capture locations ... that turnover rate should be different depending on map scale. Large maps need a slightly reduced turnover time from current while smaller maps require a bigger reduction in turnover time.

Unfortunately, I am not sure those changes can actually "fix" conquest ... Conquest has always been a sub-standard skirmish with bonus points for captures. The recent increase in rewards for conquest now makes it skirmish with bonus. The temptation of the bonus points does result in some force splitting at the beginning ... but for the teams that win ... not usually very much. A couple of lights cap the nearest points and then regroup to take out the enemy main force or suppress the opposing fast capture mechs,

[CDLord HHGD]

Mode/map should be random/random, BUT with a better prep-screen (dropship?) and better randomizer. Sunday I dropped a handfull of times and it was 3 times MC and 3 times FC. Didn't see CV or FC at all.

[Vandul]

Could you imagine Conquest played UT Domination Style? All you have to do is run over the objective to turn it. Oh what mayhem would ensue

[Vassago Rain]

Vandul, on 15 October 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

Could you imagine Conquest played UT Domination Style? All you have to do is run over the objective to turn it. Oh what mayhem would ensue

I suggested that in early 2012.

[Almond Brown]

Quote

You could do this by making it so that the team at the end of the match with the most points wins; before you finish off that last enemy Mech you better make sure your team is in the lead for points or you may cause your team to lose.

I like this one but it could be used for purposes of Grieving.

[Vinhasa]

make the points turn and cap in under 15 seconds... otherwise, the game mode sucks. I know i like NOTHING better than sitting around for 2 freaking minutes with my thumbs up my ass doing absolutely nothing. Oh wait, I do. I like to shoot at stompy robots instead.

[WarHippy]

Almond Brown, on 15 October 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

I like this one but it could be used for purposes of Grieving.

I suppose so, but I think it could work with some tweaking.