28 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Timuroslav, on 16 March 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

I also liked Conquest because it changed the focus areas of the map.
When the capture points were super spread out on Alphine, I loved it. Now it's Cater to the whiny Heavies and Assaults, who can't be bothered to listen to their team. Medium pilots are basically, bullied into following their team.

Also the New conquest has the new and improved waiting feature, for when your team gets wiped out.

In societies that groom people to believe that "Bigger Is Always Better", what else do you expect people to demand?

[Kyynele]

I think the basic idea for the new conquest is ok, it's no longer ok to completely disregard caps and just kill everyone.

However, the waiting until 750 when the losing team is already dead and no longer holding any caps is so stupid I can't understand how that has passed the QA. I do hope PGI realizes how bad this is and fixes it, but I'm afraid this was suggested by someone in a higher standing who is unable to admit that it's a bad idea and we'll have to suffer it until something like 2018.

I used to vote for Conquest whenever possible, just because it often forces fights around the map, but as it is, I will have to vote against it every time.

Domination feels pretty nice, although it has some problems on some maps like Crimson Strait, where the other team pretty much has to push through the pass if they want to get to the zone before the match is already over.

And even in domination, the waiting at the end when the other team is 100% dead is just unnecessary. When the other team doesn't have even a theoretical chance to win the match, the match should end, so everyone can move on.

[Clownwarlord]

I like the new conquest

I like the new domination

I do not like pugs

correction I love pugs



Just a different kind of pug

[Bilbo]

clownwarlord, on 16 March 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

I like the new conquest

I like the new domination

I do not like pugs

correction I love pugs



Just a different kind of pug

That is the saddest pic I've seen in a while. I keep hoping it's gif that fails to run and the poor ******* gets his cookie in the end.

[MischiefSC]

Except in no way, shape or form does this change measurably after the value of capping. Like that 1 game in 20 where the losing team was ahead on caps and the winning team managed tto get the last kill before the counter ran up... it's an irrelevant change for win/loss 95% of the time but an irritating time waste on 85% of matches in Conquest.

This isn't about wanting it all to be skirmish. I know wicm and know he would love objective based modes. We play CW as much as possible for that very reason.

This change in no way improves the capping facet of conquest, it just adds wasted time.

It's nothing but a net negative change.

[WarHippy]

Timuroslav, on 16 March 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

The problem is the die-hard . No-Respawn-in-any-form-Ever-people; Have a death grip on the game. Conquest in any form they hate and they hate change and variety. But, it's no fun watching the enemy team slowly win, when you can do nothing about it. So you win by capping points, There's nothing to worry about when the whole enemy team is dead...

But, hey they want every mode to be skirmish; and so far they are winning. Sigh
I advocated a way for Conquest to spawn in tanks, hover crafts and helicopters, but noooo "Everyone should be forced to play my way forever."

You know what the say about people who assume...

I want nothing to do with respawns, but I also hate skirmish with a passion. I also hate this voting nonsense, but it is what it is. That being said these changes to conquest are not the way to do it, but PGI tends to take the easy way out by just forcing people to do them instead of properly incentivizing people to do them hence loss of game mode choice and now these changes to conquest(you will be forced to cap if you like it or not).

[Lozruet Gravemind]

Chuanhao, on 16 March 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

Crowd A complained that the old conquest was just another variant of skirmish where the primary objective of the cap points was hardly achieved.

They changed the rules so that cap is fully required. And a team which is theoretically dead but has enough bases could actually win. But now crowd B is complaining that they just want skirmish variant type conquest ( so play skirmish right?)

I remember when we only had two modes of assault and conquest only.

Cant please everyone.

I just want turrets back in Assault. That's crowd C.

I dont want Skirmishquest back. What I want is not to have to sit and watch the enemy team for 4 minutes after the herp derp pugs get killed playing like idiots. They could of simply increased the Point rate that caps give to where if you ignore them you WILL lose. Murderball was the best tactic before patch and Murderball is STILL the best option. Now you just have to sit there for another 4 minutes after you kill everyone. Nothings changed just wasting peoples time now.

Kyynele, on 16 March 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

I think the basic idea for the new conquest is ok, it's no longer ok to completely disregard caps and just kill everyone.

However, the waiting until 750 when the losing team is already dead and no longer holding any caps is so stupid I can't understand how that has passed the QA. I do hope PGI realizes how bad this is and fixes it, but I'm afraid this was suggested by someone in a higher standing who is unable to admit that it's a bad idea and we'll have to suffer it until something like 2018.

I used to vote for Conquest whenever possible, just because it often forces fights around the map, but as it is, I will have to vote against it every time.

Domination feels pretty nice, although it has some problems on some maps like Crimson Strait, where the other team pretty much has to push through the pass if they want to get to the zone before the match is already over.

And even in domination, the waiting at the end when the other team is 100% dead is just unnecessary. When the other team doesn't have even a theoretical chance to win the match, the match should end, so everyone can move on.

Yes you can still completely ignore caps. Depending on how fast you Murderball its STILL the best option.

[Clownwarlord]

I like the new conquest, basically it is skirmish and keep point similar to the enemy's. Once enemy is completely destroyed, gather the other cap points for more Cbills and XP. Then win.

It forces you to keep an eye on the cap points from start to finish until the match is won.

[Lozruet Gravemind]

MischiefSC, on 16 March 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

Except in no way, shape or form does this change measurably after the value of capping. Like that 1 game in 20 where the losing team was ahead on caps and the winning team managed tto get the last kill before the counter ran up... it's an irrelevant change for win/loss 95% of the time but an irritating time waste on 85% of matches in Conquest.

This isn't about wanting it all to be skirmish. I know wicm and know he would love objective based modes. We play CW as much as possible for that very reason.

This change in no way improves the capping facet of conquest, it just adds wasted time.

It's nothing but a net negative change.

Like Ive said a couple times in this thread, add back in Wipe as a game ender but up the Tick rate of the points or lower the required points. I dont know what the current cap rate is, lets just say its 1 point every 3 seconds. If 90+% of Conquest games are ending in Murderball then up the tick rate to 3 points every 3 seconds. Or whatever it takes to get a roughly 50/50 between Murderball and Cap Win, with a reasonable +/-3% between the two being alright.