60 replies to this topic

[FalconerGray]

Conquest on Tourmaline Desert consistently makes for the best games of all IMO.

[Thorqemada]

Roughly 1/3 of the Player Base likes to play Coqnuest - Assault and Skirmish Players tend to downvote Conquest most of the time when having a choice.
As Vote weighting make the loser Votes getting more weight over the time of every downvoted Conquest games at some point the weighted Votes of the Conquest Players stack up high enough to make it happen

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 June 2016 - 12:13 PM.

[Red Shrike]

Galenit, on 27 June 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

If most players hate conquest, why does it get voted then?

Because I rack up a multiplier and then spend it on Conquest.

[Lykaon]

Douglas grizzly, on 26 June 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Why do some of you people choose conquest knowing that most likely you will get bug stomped? Most of the people i drop and who choose conquest are so incompetent that they do not use terrain and cover and as a result they get steam rolled. There is no incentive in relation to conquest to make me ever want to choose conquest before anything else. The piddly little bonus is just that: piddly and before i will willingly choose conquest i will choose any other. i always questions someones intelligence when they choose that scenario.

Why Skirmish?

The thing is with only one objective (kill all enemy mechs) you have granted the match maker significant power to randomly generate odds either in your favor or against it. A sizeable portion of the factors that contribute to a victory in skirmish are generated by the match maker.

Some examples.

What team is randomly assigned more ECM

What team is randomly assigned more "meta" builds

What team is randomly assigned that one knucklehead who drops in a KDK 3 and stays AFK for most of the match at the DZ

What team is randomly assigned better synergies like LRM boat + NARC light instead of no LRMs and a NARC light mech.

What team gets the disconnects

What team gets the better starting point (some maps just have more favorable spawning sides)


Say what you will but the very second the match maker has filled the teams up the match is already skewed in favor of one team over the other. And the problem is you have no secondary objectives to fall back on to possibly counter a skewed match build.

Red team gets the RNG gods blessing and is stomping the crap out of blue team...there is no base to threaten to try to draw off some of the red team. There are no conquest cap points to hold down and hope to run the clock for a 750 point win you just have to fight the unfair fight the match maker assigned you.


I will almost always take conquest over a skirmish. and winning a conquest is super simple.

one: cap the closest cap point to your spawn with ONE mech.preferably a fast one. As soon as it's capped reform with the rest of the team

two: cap the next closest cap point with your fastest mech.This fastest mech if it's really fast (over 120 kph) or fast and has ECM run to the enemy spawn and take their first cap. If it's not that fast then rejoin with the rest of the team.

Three: everything else moves to the one cap point that is generally the contested point on the map (you know the place where the enemy will be funneling into to cap)

If everything is done right the following has happened.

You didn't waste time having 8-10 mechs capping a point and instead deployed only the 2 fastest to cap.Your remaining 10 have retained formation and set up to catch the enemy to fight.

You enemy did waste time with 8-10 mechs capping and are now strung out trying to reform when you engage them.

Your one fastest mech has capped 2 points your second capping mech has taken 1 and rejoined the group giving you 3 cap points and 11 mech in formation and one (the fastest or sneakiest one) spotting capping or harassing as needed.

You now fight with the superior numbers because you didn't get seperated capping or waste time parking more than one fast mech on a cap. Win the fight then clean up the remaining enemy fast mechs.

Because you took three caps you will not allow the enemy team to accumulate high points while you fight.Also with three caps their team will be heavily tempted to uncap your points with their lights taking them out of the fight skewing the odds even more in your favor.


Question my intelligence all you like BUT...I did just present to you a fairly fool proof plan to counter a bad matchmaker pairing by playing off human nature and the objectives of the scenario.

To me skirmish mode is mechwarrior preschool. All you need to know is the difference between blue and red and how to move a curser over a target.

The grand strategy of skirmish is see red robot shoot red robot don't die first. very simple very basic and not difficult for anyone to grasp. So it's idiot mode.

Edited by Lykaon, 27 June 2016 - 02:04 AM.

[Grinster]

As a N00b who has recently fixed their settings and now seeing a smidge of colour back in my PSR bar, my Conquest W/L ratio has gone from the bottom of the QP modes to the second top. My stats also tell me that I have played enough Skirmish and Assault and need more matches with Conquest and Domination. Perhaps these Domination and Conquest Mode stats will then revert to the mean and I am Tier5-4-Life

Does anyone with a lot more Conquest matches care to share their stats?

Edited by Grinster, 27 June 2016 - 04:10 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

Davegt27, on 26 June 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Most players hate conquest but are forced to play it

The persecuted mindset at its finest. Just yesterday I entered a Conquest match where a persecuted MechWarrior was complaining about the Tyranny of the Majority.

It's both the majority dominating the minority or the minority conspiring to control the majority--it just depends on how the persecuted are feeling today.

Gotham by Knight, on 26 June 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

Precisely why FW has failed and the game is so anti teamwork.

I would say FW has failed because, among other things, it's just another brawlfest like other modes.

AnTi90d, on 26 June 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

I'd just like a blacklist so I can untick Conquest from my queues, have longer wait times and never have to deal with that dreck.

We conquest fans would like a blacklist too.

[Chagatay]

Jables McBarty, on 27 June 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

We conquest fans would like a blacklist too.

Ain't that the truth, I would can that skirmish mode so fast.......

As much as I am not the biggest fan of Domination, it is at least redeemable. All PGI has to do is make the Domination circle a pick between a handful of places on the map. It would probably at that point be one of my favorite modes.

Edited by Chagatay, 27 June 2016 - 10:43 AM.

[SkavenDC]

It's all about the c-bills baby.

I'd post a screen shot of my stats like Grinster, but I'm at work and far too lazy right now. But Skirmish averages 147K per game and Conquest averages 217k per game.

That, and like others said, it's not usually the death ball fight in static spot "X", although Theta usually turns into a brawl at times.

[Aiden Skye]

I wish skirmish was removed completely. Domination could use some work as it seems like another skirmish where you cannot leave the center. That leaves most of the map as a waste of space. It would be much more interesting if the beacon location was dynamic and not always in the same spot we always fight over when everyone runs to the middle.

These 2 modes right here, skirmish and domination, nothing but nascar and deathballs. At least in conquest and assault you can force the other team to do something by hitting their cap in assault, or set an ambush at a cap point in conquest.

[Revis Volek]

Douglas grizzly, on 26 June 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Why do some of you people choose conquest knowing that most likely you will get bug stomped? Most of the people i drop and who choose conquest are so incompetent that they do not use terrain and cover and as a result they get steam rolled. There is no incentive in relation to conquest to make me ever want to choose conquest before anything else. The piddly little bonus is just that: piddly and before i will willingly choose conquest i will choose any other. i always questions someones intelligence when they choose that scenario.

If one side gets stomped then the other side wins right?

I mean if you ask me them are ok odds, 50% chance.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

I love Conquest, why? Because fighting is secondary, you have to use your head more than Skirmish requires you to. Assault in my book is the second most brain dead mode atm, why? Because you never bother going back to your own base if three enemies are left and there are six of you, just hop in the enemy cap and win. If someone early in the match jumps on your base you throw a light or two at them to scare them away.

I know people will hate me saying this but, World of Tanks has the base game mode right, the basic most no brainer mode they have is what we call assault, and I think that is what we should have, remove Skirmish as it is right now and replace it with Assault and just rename Assault Skirmish. Why? Because it at least gives players two things to worry about, kills and their base. I also would change the capping method to mimic what WoT has where it is just a timer instead of a bar that is fully reset if you shoot the enemy in the cap. Why? Because it will make going back to your own cap mean more. Have it also so when you interrupt a cap in _any_ mode that you get a bonus for it to _reward_ playing the objective.

I think that is the biggest point PGI needs to learn, heavily reward playing the objective, make it so curb stomping the enemy team nets you a decent amount of cbills, but, the players who are working on the actual objectives. Which even in FP don't count towards your damage count and thus pays out nothing unless it is destroyed and that goes to the whole team, no bonus to the player who did the objective.

I also feel we do need an asymmetric assault mode, we already have a neutral cap mode (domination), and zone control (conquest), we are getting a better Assault mode which is great, and they are working on an asymmetric game mode which is idea. What we don't need is skirmish, what we need is rewarding players for doing things other than direct damage, because due to the obsession with damage there is no rolewarfare because you don't get rewarded for scouting, you get minimal rewards for narc, tag, uav's, and spotting assists (why not spotting kill as well?).

I do think what would also be interesting is adding two additional zones in Domination that either slow down, block, or also tick down the timer (third option is preferred, second option is second best) so you don't have teams completely ball up on one point. However, this also gives an interesting situation on Domination on Frozen City, one side has a clear advantage, the side that the deck of the frozen ship is facing as they get considerable cover within the cap circle which leads to an asymmetrical battle, the other team in this situation has no real cover within the cap circle to sit in so they either have to push into the cap circle and oust the team hiding behind hard cover or they will lose. This sort of gameplay of forcing a teams hand to act is good. Like one thing that could be changed is in Domination one team is trying to defend the uplink and prevent the enemy from standing in the circle for a full minute and getting the data transmission, to aid them on their side they have say an APU that they can put a mech on to de-power the dish that is back between the spawn points of the defender while the attacker has to push a side route to get to the APU to get the power going again. This would make a push and pull dynamic and prevent one team from being able to always have everyone on point. This is what Conquest does, there isn't just one focal point, there are also side objectives you need to pay attention to, doing so can and will lose you the game.

But, that is just my T4 scrub opinion on how to make quickplay, and even faction play more fun. Oh and faction play maps need to be changed due to atm it is just deathball vs firing line and the only real difference is what gate you push in through and what hill you sit on. Sadly fixing FP would require a massive overhaul of the current maps, the pallets are fine, the map's are very... DOTA like with build in lanes for attacks which is not good for gameplay, yes chokes are fun, but, when there is really only one place to fight the chokes don't matter, you are always fighting in the base due to there is nothing else to fight for, making many of us constantly ask "What am I fighting for?!"

[Jables McBarty]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 27 June 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

I think that is the biggest point PGI needs to learn, heavily reward playing the objective, make it so curb stomping the enemy team nets you a decent amount of cbills, but, the players who are working on the actual objectives. Which even in FP don't count towards your damage count and thus pays out nothing unless it is destroyed and that goes to the whole team, no bonus to the player who did the objective.

I'd like to see either:
-Diminishing time-based bonus. So the longer the game goes on, the less time moneys you earn. Like they had in the original Super Smash Bros single-player (possibly later ones too). Goes to the victor.
-Surviving Allies bonus. +X Cbills for each team member that survives to the winning team.

Both of these give a clear incentive to win and the winning team gets more cbills than the loser. Right now an Assault "pure" victory nets winning team like $30K and the losers $15K. But with time/ally bonuses, you can get that up much higher.

Quote

I also feel we do need an asymmetric assault mode, we already have a neutral cap mode (domination), and zone control (conquest), we are getting a better Assault mode which is great, and they are working on an asymmetric game mode which is idea. What we don't need is skirmish, what we need is rewarding players for doing things other than direct damage, because due to the obsession with damage there is no rolewarfare because you don't get rewarded for scouting, you get minimal rewards for narc, tag, uav's, and spotting assists (why not spotting kill as well?).

Fingers crossed my friend.

Quote

But, that is just my T4 scrub opinion

It's your game too.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

You can get the most rewards on it and you can also get smaller engagements as mechs are running around capping. The diversity of action is good.

[zachyattacky]

Conquest = $$$ that's why I vote for it when I'm grinding for cbills

[IdolElite]

I almost always choose skirmish, my second is probably the new mode who's name eludes me at the moment, then assault and finally conquest.

That being said there are maps, alpine comes to mind, that are fantastic on conquest. I hate normal alpine, conquest alpine is great though.

I mostly run heavies and light assaults, and I like to brawl, so I pick the mode that usually gets me in a brawl. Each map is a little different with which mode is best for that, but it does tend to lean towards skirmish. I know some folk want more from the game, but for my part, I play to blow up other mechs.

Edited by IdolElite, 27 June 2016 - 04:51 PM.

[FalconerGray]

Grinster, on 27 June 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

As a N00b who has recently fixed their settings and now seeing a smidge of colour back in my PSR bar, my Conquest W/L ratio has gone from the bottom of the QP modes to the second top. My stats also tell me that I have played enough Skirmish and Assault and need more matches with Conquest and Domination. Perhaps these Domination and Conquest Mode stats will then revert to the mean and I am Tier5-4-Life

Does anyone with a lot more Conquest matches care to share their stats?

For science:

[G3 Heathen]

In conquest, a player with tier 5 skill but a good grasp of team play can have a good game. Be productive and contribute to a win. It's as close to the old mechwarrior 2 mercenaries missions as we are gonna get as well.

[Malachy Karrde]

I choose conquest because it usually requires tactics. I usually don't have to take on more than a quarter of the enemy force alone, and it allows for some epic 1,2 or 3 on 1s. It also pretty much eliminates the snipe fest, and meta tards really suck at it lol. I also like the cbill bonus. I'll always vote conquest over the other choices.

[Lykaon]

Douglas grizzly, on 26 June 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Most of the people i drop and who choose conquest are so incompetent that they do not use terrain and cover and as a result they get steam rolled.

How are you knowing for sure that the players who choose conquest are the same ones who play poorly?

I would think it is far more likely that the players who have difficulty dealing with pesky variables like objectives are the same ones who pick skirmish all the time.

You see when you only ever play one mode (the easiest mode at that) you may find a lack in adaptability or a more comprehensive grasp of tactics beyond "see red robit shoot red robit don't die first".

Seriously what is the grand strategy of Skirmish?

Stay together don't die first.

And let's face it folks that is skirmish in a nutshell.

All you need to know is how to drive shoot and not die first. It's MWO basic training. So I am not suprised that when a bunch of "skirmish monkeys" are dropped into a match that may require firing up a couple more brain cells to win they utterly fail.

[Revis Volek]

Grinster, on 27 June 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

As a N00b who has recently fixed their settings and now seeing a smidge of colour back in my PSR bar, my Conquest W/L ratio has gone from the bottom of the QP modes to the second top. My stats also tell me that I have played enough Skirmish and Assault and need more matches with Conquest and Domination. Perhaps these Domination and Conquest Mode stats will then revert to the mean and I am Tier5-4-Life

Does anyone with a lot more Conquest matches care to share their stats?