30 replies to this topic

[Lucian Nostra]

Game modes just need a check that looks for "can this team still win?" If it's 3 vs 2 in caps in conquest and the team with 3 caps dies than the game should run until the other team gets ahead in caps or points of whatever the combination needed so the dead team can no longer with than it just ends the game than and there.

Haven't played Domination yet but similar idea

[Sjorpha]

Yeah, that change is bad. It didn't create the desired effect and it added the pointless waiting.

Conquest was already working fine IMO. You could create map control pressure with caps and you could try to win on caps when low on kills, that was enough to make the mode unique. No need to add this useless extra waiting.

The way to make people play towards the objective is not to remove kills as a win condition, the correct change would be to make winning by objectives the best and most rewarding way to win.

Edited by Sjorpha, 19 March 2016 - 06:24 PM.

[HerrRed]

I can't understand how there are still people defending this design decision from PGI. Domination especially is glaringly obvious. Enemy team dead, cannot cap the center therefore, no need for the other team to cap the center. Conquest I could understand if there were more checks for win. I lost a contest match today in which our team was wiped and enemy team had more cap points and points. We had to wait for a couple of minutes for the match to finish because reasons.

And to the guy who brought his military career to the forum, this is not the army. If I wanted to join the army, I would have done so.

Bloody hell what is wrong with people?

Full disclamer, I love this game and I play about two hours a day if I can. But criticism where criticism is due dudes. It is far from perfect and if I and some other people here say something it is to help improve the game. Seriously, this whole "jumps into PGI defence if someone dares to mention a flaw in the game or a mechanic they want changed" needs to be toned down. It is as jrritating as people attacking PGI and asking for nerfs depending on how they lost the last match.

[Khobai]

they need to just add respawns

without respawns every gamemode will always be skirmish

[Lupis Volk]

If PGI MUST keep this system in they need to bring in respawning for conqest and domination

Edited by Lupis Volk, 19 March 2016 - 07:56 PM.

[Macster16]

Unlimited respawns I think is a no-no. Dropdecks though i wouldn't have a problem with.

Fact is, one-death-and-you're-out rule simply forces too much emphasis on kills first and totally sidelines whatever "objective". As long as it's one-death, it's just going to be another spin on skirmish.

[Ace Selin]

Mcgral18, on 19 March 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Worse: It forces the Skirmish into a 1KM circle around that part of the map, because if you aren't inside it, you'll lose.

Meaning is has less variation to normal Skirmish

Thats the way i see it too. Skirmish with a designated fighting point

[ScarecrowES]

Ace Selin, on 19 March 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

Why do you still need to cap domination when other team is dead? Its over, it should end. This is like the worst idea ever that you need to cap still.

I'd say if the enemy team is dead, they've been effectively "dominated." Thus, objective achieved, eh?

Unless we're talking domination as in, BDSM... where we're just continue to spank the other guy because he can't remember the safe word to make it stop.

Either way, it's not going to be much fun for the one on the receiving end.

Ace Selin, on 19 March 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

Thats the way i see it too. Skirmish with a designated fighting point

The irony... the Domination circle just sits right in the middle of the point on the map everyone fights over anyway.

[Beaching Betty]

Because it how the game works now...?

[MonkeyCheese]

I have a better idea, give the assault mode its base turrets back, beef them up some more, then give the condition that when you kill the enemy team you must then ASSAULT the base and take on the turrets/cap point to actually win the match.

If you succeed you win, if the base defences kill everybody then the dead team wins.

There is your non skirmish gamemode that adds a little pve flavor.

[ScarecrowES]

MonkeyCheese, on 19 March 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

I have a better idea, give the assault mode its base turrets back, beef them up some more, then give the condition that when you kill the enemy team you must then ASSAULT the base and take on the turrets/cap point to actually win the match.

If you succeed you win, if the base defences kill everybody then the dead team wins.

There is your non skirmish gamemode that adds a little pve flavor.

Even better... stop making game modes where stompy robots of death and destruction have to stand in little boxes for a few minutes. Let them blow crap up. None of these "control" related game modes is intended to work without respawns... so give us modes that are about something else.

So how about for assault, we actually have to destroy something? Drop ship, mobile command post, repair and refit bay... something. Give it defenses. Make it so it can be hit from across the map, but maybe provide it with a certain level of protection (walls or something) so that access is limited. Make the act of defending the base and attacking the enemy the same effort. Something... anything... other than standing in a box.