Jump to content

Conquest


10 replies to this topic

#1 Danjo San

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Liao
  • Hero of Liao
  • 1,017 posts

Posted 09 June 2016 - 03:58 AM

Conquest is a tricky issueon this map.
On the one hand the conquest points are too far apart, when in lategame 2-3 Lights still have the power to turn the match around against a team that with, lets say 8 heavies left, just for cap reasons.
on the other hand the points are too close together, that the deathball tactic still works.

In my oppinion Polar Highlands, of all maps, has the possibility to break away from the Deathball Meta in Conquest by pulling the Conquest points even further apart. and pulling the Dropzones for each lance further apart. make use of the entire map.
create a more lance vs. lance feel and add new tactical possibilities to the playstyle. rather than regroup and deathball as usual.

The other possible solution would be to pull the points closer together, and continue with the same old...

#2 MadDach5und

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 37 posts
  • LocationMinnesota

Posted 23 June 2016 - 08:54 AM

I believe the misery with this map is solvable with closer, more intimate spawn points. Right now, teams have to jog across 1/4 of this huge map to get anywhere near a capture node OR to defend the assault base. As 'open' as this map claims to be, there isn't anything observable for troop movements for at least two or three minutes at the start of most matches. Boring!

Have teams jump in basically IN FRONT of where the team bases would be in Assault. Then players need to decide if they want to immediately engage the enemy, or run backwards/sideways to capture nodes. It saves at least 30-45 seconds of idle time, and forces teams to corroborate movements sooner and become more vocal quicker into the match.

#3 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 06 July 2016 - 12:37 PM

View PostDanjo San, on 09 June 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

[...] when in lategame 2-3 Lights still have the power to turn the match around against a team that with, lets say 8 heavies left, just for cap reasons. [...]

Only if the enemy isn't smart enough to break into groups of 2 and hold 3-4 objectives... If they are too far out to do that and/or too late to do that, then they shouldn't have put so much focus on killing the enemy. I like conquest because it's the ONLY game mode that doesn't focus on killing the enemy.

View PostMadDach5und, on 23 June 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

I believe the misery with this map is solvable with closer, more intimate spawn points. Right now, teams have to jog across 1/4 of this huge map to get anywhere near a capture node OR to defend the assault base. As 'open' as this map claims to be, there isn't anything observable for troop movements for at least two or three minutes at the start of most matches. Boring!

Have teams jump in basically IN FRONT of where the team bases would be in Assault. Then players need to decide if they want to immediately engage the enemy, or run backwards/sideways to capture nodes. It saves at least 30-45 seconds of idle time, and forces teams to corroborate movements sooner and become more vocal quicker into the match.

This is a brilliant idea.

#4 Danjo San

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Liao
  • Hero of Liao
  • 1,017 posts

Posted 06 July 2016 - 03:23 PM

View PostFox the Apprentice, on 06 July 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Only if the enemy isn't smart enough to break into groups of 2 and hold 3-4 objectives... If they are too far out to do that and/or too late to do that, then they shouldn't have put so much focus on killing the enemy. I like conquest because it's the ONLY game mode that doesn't focus on killing the enemy.


This is a brilliant idea.

It's what i am saying, they are too close together so the "murderball" tactic is still appealing, but at the same time they are too far apart to conquer a late game light caprush... So what I was meaning to say, if they were further apart, teams would not have a valid reason to murderball and would have to concentrate on a lance to lance battle over the points.
If you pull them further together the murderball tactic as on every other map plays out the same as before... polar highlands has a unique opportunity because of the large symmetrical round map layout, you could focus on a completely different style of play, if you pulled the caps further apart and spread the drops further apart as well... breaking the murderball routine you have on every other map

#5 Shu Horus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 133 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 12:02 AM

I do like this mode very much as well and I really would appreciate if they would do some rebalancing of the Maps to encourage playing the different game modes actually diffrently. Polar Highlands would be optimal for this, as already stated, as it is big enough that you could place the capture points in a manner that you can no longer ignore the aim of this game mode, and if you do, you will certainly lose to someone who does.

But I hate playing it with random Drops, as most solo Players do not care about it and just play it like Skirmish.

These are mostly the same Players which die and then start to rant on the Players they are spectating who are not doing front line brawling like they did. And they are usually the ones that stat complaining all over the place if their team loses by points even if they had an 8:3 Kill lead.


Cheers,
Nuit

#6 Danjo San

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Liao
  • Hero of Liao
  • 1,017 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 05:32 AM

Something like this could be done to encourage more Lance vs. Lance Warfare on conquest Mode, while dropping from the Murderball Skirmish Tactic. Please excuse my lousy photoshop skills. Posted Image

#7 iNfUsi0N

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 28 July 2016 - 12:45 AM

View PostDanjo San, on 20 July 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Something like this could be done to encourage more Lance vs. Lance Warfare on conquest Mode, while dropping from the Murderball Skirmish Tactic. Please excuse my lousy photoshop skills. Posted Image


Hi Danjo!
I like the idea as shown on the image. Would be awesome!

#8 pyrocomp

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 05:02 AM

View PostDanjo San, on 20 July 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Something like this could be done to encourage more Lance vs. Lance Warfare on conquest Mode, while dropping from the Murderball Skirmish Tactic. Please excuse my lousy photoshop skills. Posted Image

Move blue Bravo lance to E6/D6 border and red Bravo to H6/I6 for more options (Theta or not Theta) and more stress on lance vs lance, as proposed deployment strongly urges Bravo to cap and run to join Charlie.

Edited by pyrocomp, 01 August 2016 - 05:02 AM.


#9 Danjo San

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Liao
  • Hero of Liao
  • 1,017 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 06:25 AM

View Postpyrocomp, on 01 August 2016 - 05:02 AM, said:

Move blue Bravo lance to E6/D6 border and red Bravo to H6/I6 for more options (Theta or not Theta) and more stress on lance vs lance, as proposed deployment strongly urges Bravo to cap and run to join Charlie.

by the time bravo lance has capped gamma, respectively sigma, fights around kappa and epsilon will be in full swing, Alpha or Charlie lance both could either call for backup from bravo or bravo continues straight to theta where it will be reinforced by the victors over epsilon or kappa.
In Order to reach Kappa or Epsilon Bravo Lance has to walk 6 Sectors. If they walk straight to Theta they Cross 4 Sectors.
From your suggestion E6/D6 and H6/I6 you have only 4 Sectors to pass if you go straight to reinforce Alpha or Charlie Lance at Epsilon or Kappa.
I would think this would highly increase the probability of two lances joining forces early and then hoping to outnumber one of the enemy lances at Epsi or Kappa.
The point of the proposal was to emphasize a Lance vs. Lance Battle rather than grouping up and murderballing as it is done on any other map. By placing one lance further behind it ensures that they are "fresh" and can reinforce a side that needs it most. Also if Alpha or Charlie notice they are being overpowered and lets say two of the four drop, the other two can retreat back towards bravo and then counter push again once they joined forces.
Plus having Sigma and Gamma as safe Caps without having to decide to go forward to theta or backwards to cap, ensures that both teams counters start counting early. Cap points are far apart and uncapping to prevent the timer from running down will be a hard task for a slower mech. And such emphasizing the Cap Game, What conquest should actually be about. Most of the time it plays out as skirmish with an alternative win condition.

#10 pyrocomp

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 01 August 2016 - 06:39 AM

View PostDanjo San, on 01 August 2016 - 06:25 AM, said:

...

Fights around Epsilon between Alpha lances will cease by the time Bravo caps and fight between Charlie most probably will not start as of yet. As 4 sectors, it still is a hell of a ride, and for both sides that ride will be across the ridged terrain (the terrain to Alpha lances is somewhat flatter), that does not add speed. Anyway, time for an assault lance to grind another assault lance is under 1 minute (tested many times on Terra Therma). So starting wide there most probably will be more or less equal cap count (two guaranteed caps at the very least) and Bravo+Charlie joint forces from both sides going for Theta (whatever the outcome on Epsilon).
Moving closer enforces the choice to go swing the favors for the Charlie lance forfeiting cap (opfor may get their nearest cap and for free gets Theta) or to cap and from that point to get into your initial scenario. This may add another option on what to do at the beginnig, rather than for Bravo lances to cap in any case and then choose.
Anyway, this better be tested. Posted Image

EDIT: typos.

Edited by pyrocomp, 01 August 2016 - 06:41 AM.


#11 Jables McBarty

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,034 posts
  • LocationIn the backfield.

Posted 02 August 2016 - 11:28 AM

Please, don't change Conquest on PH. It's one of the few matches in which there is some tactical variation and actual decision-making.

RE: The complaint that 3 lights can beat 8 heavies by capping. Um, that's the point?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users