30 replies to this topic

[Quxudica]

To set the example scenario in question:

Mining Colony Conquest. Our side had manage to kill a couple of their mechs and taken fewer casualties while their side had held three control points long enough to acrew a marginal point lead. The match was still reasonably fresh and certainly hadn't been decided yet, however as an experienced player (and I'm sure other veterans will know what this feels like) I had that gut feeling that this was probably a combat win if we didn't get point capped first - our side had at the moment a positional advantage and the number advantage is definitely crucial. Still, their points were increasing. Having stomped my heavy along the right side of the map (heading North), hitting the control points along the way with two other mechs I engaged a lone enemy medium and we quickly killed it.

I saw our positional advantage, I saw their diminished numbers. They still had three control nodes and a widening point advantage (couple hundred over us now, enought to be worrying). The last node near me was up in the right hand corner, far from where the fighting was taking place and I was in a 75 kph mech. My allies had turned around now, I had to make a choice: play to the mission objective and cap the control point, having the gut feeling that it likely was not to matter (but far from being rationally sure), or turn and march towards the fight - knowing that I was doing so not because I was likely to be needed.. but because I had spent most of the fight out of combat capping and my reward for this match was going to be crap.. to say nothing of the fact that walking around for a few minutes and standing in squares hadn't made for a compelling gameplay session.

The mission objectives in conquest feel so very arbitrary (and honestly, so does assault). Playing the objective is important to win, ignoring it will often get you a point loss, but simultaneously playing the objective is often the least rewarding thing you can do in these matches: both litteraly in regards to cbills and figuratively in regards to simple enjoyment factor.

The mode feels like game. It doesn't feel like a real battle the way conquest in War Thunder, Battlefield, ARMA or other such games do. The control points themselves feel arbitrary, their locations feel unimportant, the maps generally don't flow in a way to make them feel like they matter. For instance in War Thunder or Battlefield (older BF titles that is, haven't played since.. bad company 2 I think) conquest maps usualy have the nodes set up in a manner that makes the map feel like a tug of war on the front line. Each node leads to the next node and thus taking them is important not just for the objective, but for the flow of the battle, taking node A has the direct strategic effect of helping take node B because it pushes your front line forward.

Comparitively, many of the nodes in MWO's conquest are entirely irrelavant when it comes to flow of battle and positioning, several being way off in random places or corners that rarely see any kind of real fighting. A proper game mode with properly designed maps should, to me at least, encourage playing the objective just as a natural course of the battle. Yes you can have idiots in BF or whatever game stay on the fringes or fight in the wrong places, but generally speaking the flow of the match dictates that you end up hitting your objectives because it's simply required to do so and you are actively rewarded for it - both with enjoyment from the fun of the battle and with whatever progression reward the game in question yields. In MWO you don't get this, the objectives are often in conflict with getting rewarded and frankly they are almost never enjoyable to pursue - yet you often have to make the concious choice to pursue them because the flow of battle can make them only semi releveant.



Anyone else feel this way?

[Foxfire kadrpg]

I didn't read all of this;

I do believe that sometimes the control points are arbitrary. On a map as painfully small as Forest Closet, they're kinda meaning less. Alpine's central cluster basically replaces "The Mountain" of other game modes.

That being said, I REALLY think Terra Therma shines in conquest mode. The open capture points on the outside are often too tempting for the side lances to vie for, and any entrenchment in the center of the map can be easily called out with capture of the remaining points.

It would really strike my fancy if, instead of selecting gamemodes, the existing maps were only available in certain modes: I.E. Skirmish for River City and Forest Closet, Conquest only for Terra Therma. ect.

[Quxudica]

Foxfire kadrpg, on 22 March 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

I didn't read all of this;

I do believe that sometimes the control points are arbitrary. On a map as painfully small as Forest Closet, they're kinda meaning less. Alpine's central cluster basically replaces "The Mountain" of other game modes.

That being said, I REALLY think Terra Therma shines in conquest mode. The open capture points on the outside are often too tempting for the side lances to vie for, and any entrenchment in the center of the map can be easily called out with capture of the remaining points.

It would really strike my fancy if, instead of selecting gamemodes, the existing maps were only available in certain modes: I.E. Skirmish for River City and Forest Closet, Conquest only for Terra Therma. ect.

Part of the problem is that they designed the maps, then slapped the modes on to them. Ideally maps should be designed with their intended game modes in mind. So yeah some maps should be restricted to certain modes. I'd also say older maps should be restricted to 8v8, as they just aren't big enough for 12 v 12 in any mode (to be honest I think 8v8 was better anyway, but thats a different thread).

Edited by Quxudica, 22 March 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[Reitrix]

In my experience Conquest just turns into a murderball anyway. Inevitably, one team will try to play the objective, the other team sees them break aside and then murderballs the whole team.

[Taffer]

For now, the least I can ask for is a reward increase for capping the points. It does feel lame sitting there, running around, sitting there, and so on. I'd rather be in the fight, but sometimes I can see the points falling out of our favor and I take it upon myself to chase these stupid nodes.

[627]

when comparing battlefield or for the gameplay mechanic frontlines: fuel of war with MWO's conquest you forget an important detail:

respawn and respawn tickets.

In those games, you can't decide the game by killing everyone because they respawn. In MWO you have this alternative, it's like taking a shortcut instead of playing the objective.

In battlefield you have to take points or you'll end up with no tickets. You can't ignore it because 32 people simply can't kill 700 for the "shortcut" - in MWO you can.

And there you have the reason why this mode feels so fake. If you'd had a respawn for this like in CW, this could work, but with only one life?

And not even starting with the maps... conquest in mordor for example in anything slower than 120 is a pain... when I think about it, that map always is...

[Kjudoon]

The mission goals are very arbitrary and achieving them is even worse in some regards.

My suggestion on the best way to fix conquest is this.

1. Killing/mech destruction... all the things Rambos do... are reduced to 25% rewards from current value.

2. You cannot win by killing all enemy mechs. You must win by cap before the timer runs out or you lose. So you can lose with killing all the enemy because you did not accomplish the goals.

3. All conquest rewards after killing all mechs are also reduced to 25%.

4. Cap points do not score unless a mech is standing on them.

5. Double all conquest based rewards.

What this should do:

A- End murderballs. It does this by-

Taking away the incentive to kill first and ignore the mode goals intent.

Teams that don't split up will lose.

Forces role warfare

B- Makes small group combat necessary of 2 and 3 mechs.

C- Be more realistic in that land conquered must be held and that means guarding it by standing on cap.

D- Create a totally different tactical and strategic view of the maps and games.

Not all modes are skirmish, and in Conquest at least this needs to be powerfully enforced through rewards. Fights SHOULD happen, but they shouldn't just be repeats of skirmish and assault with Murderball v. Murderball. They have their mode. Let's have conquest be something that requires a lot more finesse to win beyond "mech smash" and see what precipitates.

[Sarlic]

I agree.

But i have stated alot of times before.


The community needs to get involved in map making. E.g. Mapmaker.

It's seriously a hidden power.

Edited by Sarlic, 23 March 2015 - 01:34 AM.

[Quxudica]

627, on 22 March 2015 - 11:53 PM, said:

when comparing battlefield or for the gameplay mechanic frontlines: fuel of war with MWO's conquest you forget an important detail:

respawn and respawn tickets.

In those games, you can't decide the game by killing everyone because they respawn. In MWO you have this alternative, it's like taking a shortcut instead of playing the objective.

In battlefield you have to take points or you'll end up with no tickets. You can't ignore it because 32 people simply can't kill 700 for the "shortcut" - in MWO you can.

And there you have the reason why this mode feels so fake. If you'd had a respawn for this like in CW, this could work, but with only one life?

And not even starting with the maps... conquest in mordor for example in anything slower than 120 is a pain... when I think about it, that map always is...

You are right yeah, I don't know if I can even think of another game with a one life per match conquest mode. It just doesn't work well. Conquest would feel a lot better I think if it had just been the traditional game type using resource tickets.

Honestly I've always felt that all the game modes are somewhat botched. Assault should have been Attackers vs Defenders, only one side with a base, one life per round in a best of three rounds (each team attacks/defends).

Conquest should have been the larger scale mode with respawn on maps designed using the tug-of-war style ideal and not just the same Assault maps with randomly ploped sqaures.

Assault and Conquest honestly feel unfinished to me, like they are still halfway between a Beta placeholder game mode and the release version.

Quote

2. You cannot win by killing all enemy mechs. You must win by cap before the timer runs out or you lose. So you can lose with killing all the enemy because you did not accomplish the goals.

In the two seconds it took me to read this I right away though of what, to me, would be a much better version of conquest: Make the nodes Coms arrays, power generators and AA stations, when you hit the "point" goal and win it calls in a massive dropship. this quick and dirty idea gives you a clear idea to design a map around, makes the nodes feel important and non-arbitrary and explains why simply killing the enemy team doesn't end in a win since your actual mission was to clear an LZ within a time limit.

Edited by Quxudica, 23 March 2015 - 01:42 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Quxudica, on 23 March 2015 - 01:34 AM, said:

You are right yeah, I don't know if I can even think of another game with a one life per match conquest mode. It just doesn't work well. Conquest would feel a lot better I think if it had just been the traditional game type using resource tickets.

Honestly I've always felt that all the game modes are somewhat botched. Assault should have been Attackers vs Defenders, only one side with a base, one life per round in a best of three rounds (each team attacks/defends).

Conquest should have been the larger scale mode with respawn on maps designed using the tug-of-war style ideal and not just the same Assault maps with randomly ploped sqaures.

Assault and Conquest honestly feel unfinished to me, like they are still halfway between a Beta placeholder game mode and the release version.

One life per match regardless of type is part of what makes MWO decent. It ends suicide garbage that we see on CW.

[Hans Von Lohman]

MWO should steal a good idea from another game, World of Warships.

That new game in beta has a conquest mode, but kills also grant points towards winning as well as take away points for the team that lost a unit.

[Quxudica]

Kjudoon, on 23 March 2015 - 01:36 AM, said:

One life per match regardless of type is part of what makes MWO decent. It ends suicide garbage that we see on CW.

A ticket system would make "suicide garbage" impossible as doing so would litterally lose you the match. Everytime someone dies a point is deducted from that sides total, hit zero and it's match over. Nodes in such modes typically serve primarily as spawn locations, allowing respawns to get back into the fight faster and thus gives the side holding the node an advantage. Some games also have nodes generate tickets or generate a seperate victory point score which ends the match if it hits a limit.

MWO's conquest is pretty much the least inspired take on the idea I think I've ever seen.

[Bawbagzz]

I stopped playing conquest,I just hated it as it nearly always ended up a light zerg rush.I would also like the option to turn off 3 maps from the rotation.Bog (hate getting stuck on roots that I should be able to crush easily in my giant mech),Mining collective which I can't stand and either Mordor or River City Night.
I would love the option of turning these maps off.

[Quxudica]

Bawbagzz, on 23 March 2015 - 01:57 AM, said:

I stopped playing conquest,I just hated it as it nearly always ended up a light zerg rush.I would also like the option to turn off 3 maps from the rotation.Bog (hate getting stuck on roots that I should be able to crush easily in my giant mech),Mining collective which I can't stand and either Mordor or River City Night.
I would love the option of turning these maps off.

The game should have had full map selection before it went into Open Beta. It boggles my mind that it still doesn't have it years later. This is of course because they use blind drops as a balancing mechanic, it's beyond silly that you wouldn't know what environment you would be dropping into but apparently such knowledge would break the game. This is part of the reason I stopped playing brawler Assaults, I got tired of constantly getting Alpine, Tera and Tourmaline in mechs that don't break 65. My DDC was basically nothing but a walking ECM generator on Alpine with a weapon range of 350ish.

Honestly if people being able to intentionally choose to take CQC builds into a CQC map, or Long Range builds into a expansive map breaks your game.. something is fundamentally wrong with said game.

[Alistair Winter]

Conquest, just like MWO in general, is an attempt to find a comrpomise between different ideas that are basically incompatible. The end result is something that only kind of works.

Some people want Conquest to be more linear, to simulate a real battle with a front line that gets moved back and forth as you capture new objectives. In those battles, capturing a certain objective (e.g. a bridge, or a fort or a hill) has value in itself, which is why it's designated as an objective.

Other people want Conquest to be more unpredictable, in order to split companies of 12 mechs into lances and promote smaller engagements. 3 vs 3 mechs, 4 vs 4 or 5 vs 5 mechs. Sometimes a pair of light mechs might duel over a remote objective in a long, nailbiting deathmatch. In this case, it's not so much a battle as a skirmish. Ironically, Skirmish is the name PGI has given to actual battles, where 12 versus 12 mechs collide in slow formations.

The end result is an [EDIT, gg censorship] ill-begotten child, a poor compromise. More often than not, Conquest plays out as some initial rush for objectives, followed by a big battle with 8+ mechs on both sides, or even 12 v 12. Usually near the center. The losing side will often break up and try to capture if a cap victory seems realistic. And thus the last few minutes of the match are spent as victors try to hunt down and kill any survivors before they have 750 points.

Extremely dull, if you ask me. It's basically skirmish with five to ten minutes of "where's Waldo" at the end.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 23 March 2015 - 05:01 AM.

[Kjudoon]

You make a good point Alistair. They should quit trying to compromise on modes and go whole hog into them. You want small unit fights (really an actual skirmish) Go conquest. You want the big brawl for it all? Go Skirmish (really deathmatch) You want an objective to take or defend like a battle? Go assault.

[627]

another problem with exceptions and reality is time. You can't do epic battles in 15minutes or less. Look how long a battlefield round goes, that is at least 30-45minutes.

Sure, with only one mech this wouldn't work well. I just hope we'll see some improvements in CW, especially in maps and objectives. I think the longer battle time and bringing 4 mechs is the right way.

[Zordicron]

How to play conquest:
Get a cap, as you will spawn near one or the team will move towards one anyway.
Then, if the map is not a big map, form deathsquad, kill entire enemy team. IF the map is a bigger one, then look at where the enemy is capping, see if it is capping really fast, or not fast. if really fast, form squad, go kill them as they will split before you get there. If not fast, for squad, minus 2 fast mechs to go cap the "far away point" (or at least scout it) while the rest go stomp enemy.
Then, win.

Except, in pug land, this will not happen. Because pug conquest is MASTER LEVEL cat herding, and 9/10 it wont matter WTF you do, your pug team mates will either be decent fighters and hold their own or get roflstomped, or spread out over the whole map with a DWF and Atlas going to cap the far point while the jenner goes to engage 9 enemy mechs.

honestly, I don;t play conquest, because by far compared to assault or skirmish, my personal contribution is weighted the least. Conquest is 100% pug lotto vs pug lotto, contrary to popular belief map movment tactics are worth very little(because cat herding) and it all boils down to which team has less YOLO CoD players in it.

I have no idea how the mode plays in group cue, i would guess a whole lot better.

[Sarlic]

Quote

MASTER LEVEL cat herding, and 9/10 it wont matter WTF you do, your pug team mates will either be decent fighters and hold their own or get roflstomped, or spread out over the whole map

So true.

[Richard Warts]

Reitrix, on 22 March 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

In my experience Conquest just turns into a murderball anyway. Inevitably, one team will try to play the objective, the other team sees them break aside and then murderballs the whole team.

#Skirmquest

In solo queue it's often a safe bet that whichever team splits off to cap points is usually the losing team.

The most effective teams will try to get to about 4-6 kills ahead before breaking off to cap. (That's in either solo or group queue).