9 replies to this topic

[Death Proof]

I like the fact that they are trying to encourage players to play the main objective of Conquest (i.e. CAPPING), but I think the execution has some serious issues.

I think Conquest should go like this:

Main Objective: Maintain control of at least 3 bases

Win Conditions: The first team to reach 750 wins.


You do not gain points until you control at least 3 bases.

If you destroy the other team without controlling at least 3 bases, the match is a draw regardless of how many points you have.

This would require capping without making fighting pointless. Basically...it would ensure that the main objective is met before the destruction goes full throttle.

Addendum:

1. First team to reach 750 resource points wins.
2. Points don't start accumulating until you have control of at least 3 bases.
3. If one team controls at least 3 bases and you destroy them, you win.
3. If you kill the other team without one side controlling at least 3 bases, the match ends in a draw.
4. Points start accumulating very rapidly (much faster than it is currently) the more bases you control, so letting the enemy capture bases just so you can kill them is unwise as it's unlikely you won't be able to kill them all before they reach 750.

Or something like that...

I just think there's got to be a better way to encourage capping without making players twiddle their thumbs after destroying the enemy team.

Edited by Death Proof, 16 March 2016 - 05:30 PM.

[Beaching Betty]

but still, PUG life, people are always hungry for kill(s)..

[finegamingconnoisseur]

Death Proof, on 15 March 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

I like the fact that they are trying to encourage players to play the main objective of Conquest (i.e. CAPPING), but I think the execution has some serious issues. I think Conquest should go like this: Main Objective: Maintain control of at least 3 bases Win Conditions: The first team to reach 750 wins. You do not gain points until you control at least 3 bases. If you destroy the other team without controlling at least 3 bases, the match is a draw regardless of how many points you have. This would require capping without making fighting pointless. Basically...it would ensure that the main objective is met before the destruction goes full throttle. Or something like that... I just think there's got to be a better way to encourage capping without making players twiddle their thumbs after destroying the enemy team.

Good suggestion, it might encourage teams to guard the resource sites they've captured rather than capping and then moving on, with strategic positioning of 'Mechs such as an LRM boat and close-range brawler at each capped site, while the main assault force concentrates on taking (or retaking) the next 2 out of 3 sites.

However, they will have to make it so that if an entire team decides to self-destruct their 'Mechs it will not cause the match to end in a draw because they feel that they are losing before the final outcome and don't want the other team to win.

Edited by finegamingconnoisseur, 15 March 2016 - 10:59 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Terrible idea is terrible. 90% of matches will end in a draw.
If you want to put emphasis on objectives, you have to de-emphasise killing. When the enemy is all dead it's too easy to win, so add limited respawns to make it much harder to win just by killing everyone

[Nesutizale]

With respawns the killing will just take longer but I would guess that people would still just kill the entire team and then capture.
Question is how to keep people focused on points first and kills second.

The idea that you have to own a certain number of bases before the enemy team is killed is a good start. At least people have to start caping after half the enemy team is gone. Else it might be too late.

Maybe you could have stages like first you have to capture 3 of 5 bases in 3min. After that you have to hold these for another 3min before you can go stomping,
Each of these 3 things give you a winning point. So if you fullfill 2 of 3 you win,

So your team might win the race to the bases = 1 point
Your team fails to hold these = 0 points
But you team still wins the stomping = 1 point
Result you win with 2 of 3 points.

This would still need some thinking over but you should get the idea.
I think there would be 3 win scenarios to 2 loos scenarios but they all focus on the race at the start...don't know it that is good or bad. As said..could use some finetuning.


The other idea, to let people focus more on captureing, might be to have unlimited respawns. Shooters like COD do that too. That way it dosn't matter how many kills you have, just if you manage to get the objective done.

Edited by Nesutizale, 16 March 2016 - 02:50 AM.

[Death Proof]

I think one of the main tenets of this game since the beginning, was that there will not be respawns; it makes it too much like an arcade game. That's why in CW, you don't respawn, but instead have a limited drop deck with different mechs (the idea being that you are not "respawning", but instead dropping with a new pilot and mech).

However, an unlimited respawn mechanic would open up many possibilities for game modes that focus on objective other than killing.

So that said, I think it may be time to bite the bullet and admit that this game has more in common with an arcade shooter than a sim and allow respawns. As dirty sounding as that is, it might actually be best for the game. Though, I'd still prefer a better solution if possible.

One such idea would be to have a drop ship come in every 5 minutes with "fresh meat" (i.e. players fitting a similar PSR that have just entered the queue). This would allow players that have died to jump back in if there is available room, while allowing new players to get in on the action after players have died.

[Death Proof]

Troutmonkey, on 16 March 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

Terrible idea is terrible. 90% of matches will end in a draw.
If you want to put emphasis on objectives, you have to de-emphasise killing.

So, you think the majority of players would prefer to earn no money and basically purposely throw the match just to get kills? I suppose maybe that'd be a thing in the solo queue...but I have a hard time believing it'd be an issue in a team-oriented group match. That's about the most "de-emphasis" on killing it can get; i.e. no benefit whatsoever for killing until you control at least 3 bases.

[Death Proof]

Nesutizale, on 16 March 2016 - 02:39 AM, said:

With respawns the killing will just take longer but I would guess that people would still just kill the entire team and then capture.

The game would end in a draw if you killed the entire team before controlling at least 3 bases.

[Troutmonkey]

Death Proof, on 16 March 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

So, you think the majority of players would prefer to earn no money and basically purposely throw the match just to get kills? I suppose maybe that'd be a thing in the solo queue...but I have a hard time believing it'd be an issue in a team-oriented group match. That's about the most "de-emphasis" on killing it can get; i.e. no benefit whatsoever for killing until you control at least 3 bases.

There's an enemy in front of me. I'm not going to check how many enemies are left before I shoot him just in case he happens to be the last one

[Death Proof]

Troutmonkey, on 16 March 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

There's an enemy in front of me. I'm not going to check how many enemies are left before I shoot him just in case he happens to be the last one

Valid point. But easily remedied with a slight clarification of the mechanics of the game mode.

1. First team to reach 750 resource points wins.
2. Points don't start accumulating until you have control of at least 3 bases.
3. If one team controls at least 3 bases and you destroy them, you win.
3. If you kill the other team without one side controlling at least 3 bases, the match ends in a draw.
4. Points start accumulating very rapidly (much faster than it is currently) the more bases you control, so letting the enemy capture bases just so you can kill them is unwise as it's unlikely you will be able to kill them all before they reach 750.

So basically, you wouldn't have to check to see if he's the last one...if neither side controls at least 3 bases, you don't shoot (i.e. "cease fire")...if one team does, then you can blast away freely to take the contested base away from that team.

Edited by Death Proof, 16 March 2016 - 05:32 PM.