60 replies to this topic

[Douglas grizzly]

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.

[Equalizer]

Because conquest games often break the stale deathball meta associated with the other 2 modes and lead to more interesting fights. Don't think anyone cares about the few extra C-Bills it nets on a win.

[QuantumButler]

Because teams tend to break up the most in conquest to snag objectives so there is less deathballing AND you make by far the most cash in conquest.

So I ask, why choose anything BUT conquest?

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 26 June 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

Because teams tend to break up the most in conquest to snag objectives so there is less deathballing AND you make by far the most cash in conquest.

So I ask, why choose anything BUT conquest?

Objectives? Much of the player base hates them.

[QuantumButler]

Mystere, on 26 June 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

Objectives? Much of the player base hates them.

I usually do too because actually doing objectives gives you no rewards at all whereas killing everything does.

Except Conquest, SURPRISE, if you actually reward doing objectives they aren't awful, who would have thought?

Too bad playing objectives in other modes is basically penalizing you for not playing deathmatch, except I guess you could argue that playing the objective in say assault maybe ends the match faster, that's your reward.

Except when the "reward" in a game is "you don't have to play the game as much" then, well, you have ****ed your game up really badly.

Edited by QuantumButler, 26 June 2016 - 08:17 AM.

[Tordin]

Conquest is a nice thing, force people in that mode to mostly think about something else than deathballing the opposition. The key is to have a few, fast mechs go and cap as a distraction. Especially at the beginning. I've often witnessed that ONE last mech on the enemy team surviving/ winning by having the score tick in to 750 before the enemy. Tense but rewarding moments.

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 26 June 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

I usually do too because actually doing objectives gives you no rewards at all whereas killing everything does.

Except Conquest, SURPRISE, if you actually reward doing objectives they aren't awful, who would have thought?

Too bad playing objectives in other modes is basically penalizing you for not playing deathmatch.

Rewards are abysmal on the objective-based game modes because a significant and vocal section of the player base loudly and incessantly demanded that they be so.

And so again, I will dare say that at least half of the problems with this game can be traced back to its player base.

Edited by Mystere, 26 June 2016 - 08:20 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Mystere, on 26 June 2016 - 08:19 AM, said:

Rewards are abysmal on the objective-based game modes because a significant and vocal section of the player base loudly and incessantly demanded that they be so.

And so again, I will dare say that at least have of the problems with this game can be traced back to its player base.

They should really give assault at least a 100k cbill "completed objective" bonus on an objective win and let people farm out 11 kills and then go cap if they really want to maximize earnings, who really cares if they maybe make 100k extra cbills in one game mode? If you really must avoid cbill farming at all cost have the oejbective bonus decrease by 10k per enemy mech killed or something, to a minimum of 20k with 8+ kills.

Edited by QuantumButler, 26 June 2016 - 08:23 AM.

[wanderer]

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.

Because you hope your opponent's stupid enough to think it's about standing in squares, giving your deathball nice small bites to devour and win (getting the Conquest bonus for good measure).

And every Conquest win now IS a bonus thanks to the ticker hitting 750 automatically + instantly if you kill everyone and control enough points to get there before your opponent will. So yeah. Generally Conquest > Skirmish for the money.

[C E Dwyer]

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.

Ah this is one of those blame everyone else posts

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 26 June 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

They should really give assault at least a 100k cbill "completed objective" bonus on an objective win and let people farm out 11 kills and then go cap if they really want to maximize earnings, who really cares if they maybe make 100k extra cbills in one game mode? If you really must avoid cbill farming at all cost have the oejbective bonus decrease by 10k per enemy mech killed or something, to a minimum of 20k with 8+ kills.

I have a more radical alternative. Let's move to a winner-takes-all losers-get-nothing reward system. If you get capped, you get nothing, nada, nil, zilch.

Are you afraid players will just camp their bases? Well, that's what ninjas are for. Killing one of the enemy -- or getting one of yours killed -- will put the onus on one side to attack or otherwise lose.

[The Lost Boy]

Because of the cash, AND on maps like Terra Therma, and Alpine Peaks it makes for a great game.

[Idealsuspect]

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.

I could say same with skirmish ... so many campers team are rolled in skirmish lol

[QuantumButler]

Mystere, on 26 June 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

I have a more radical alternative. Let's move to a winner-takes-all losers-get-nothing reward system. If you get capped, you get nothing, nada, nil, zilch.

Are you afraid players will just camp their bases? Well, that's what ninjas are for. Killing one of the enemy -- or getting one of yours killed -- will put the onus on one side to attack or otherwise lose.

I see you favor nonsensical and completely stupid ideas, that's fine, just know that that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Edited by QuantumButler, 26 June 2016 - 09:00 AM.

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 26 June 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

I see you favor nonsensical and completely stupid ideas, that's fine, just know that that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Actually, if you think about it long and hard enough, it solves a lot of player behavioral problems and their side-effects:

• playing for points, not wins
  
• c-bill farming
  
• NASCAR
  
• lack of PUG willingness for coordination
  
• moronic players during events
  
• KDR whoring
  
• ignoring game mode objectives

I'm sure there are more but the above are a good start.

Edited by Mystere, 26 June 2016 - 09:55 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Mystere, on 26 June 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

Actually, if you think about it long and hard enough, it solves a lot of player behavioral problems and their side-effects:

• playing for points, not wins
  
• c-bill farming
  
• NASCAR
  
• lack of PUG willingness for coordination
  
• moronic players during events
  
• KDR whoring
  
• ignoring game mode objectives

I'm sure there are more but the above are a good start.

So what happens is that the raging on chat and voip gets even more abusive and toxic, P.G.I get either snowed under with complaints to support, along with the auto system getting snarled up.

Yes it will happen, there have been at least two whine posts about the game not being to peoples liking in the last 24 hours, once people on endless losing streaks get nothing the F U scrubs will fly, and it will have a very negative effect on the game, plus of course people crying oh woe, the games to hard a grind even more.

[Escef]

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?

Given that each match has 12 winners and 12 losers, why play at all knowing that most likely you will get bug stomped?

Gawds, the stupid, it burns...

[Alistair Winter]

Shhhhh! Just between you and me?

People vote for Conquest because it provides variation in where the action takes place and provides more lance vs lance engagement, and they can leave the actual capping to the 1 or 2 light mechs on their team. Win-win!

[Mystere]

Cathy, on 26 June 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

So what happens is that the raging on chat and voip gets even more abusive and toxic, P.G.I get either snowed under with complaints to support, along with the auto system getting snarled up.

Yes it will happen, there have been at least two whine posts about the game not being to peoples liking in the last 24 hours, once people on endless losing streaks get nothing the F U scrubs will fly, and it will have a very negative effect on the game, plus of course people crying oh woe, the games to hard a grind even more.

Tell me something new. This has gone on since the very beginning, event or no event.

Besides, it does not need to be applied to all game modes, just some (with of course the requisite change of removing game mode voting).

The same thing applies to maps. Not all maps should have the same proportion, or even variety, of terrain -- unlike what some posters on this thread are demanding.

[Nerdboard]

My main reason is: 50k C-bills more.

Second are spawns and how people generally move a bit different on conquest. I prefer it to the other modes. Conquest also is the only mode that sometimes is not pure deathmatch so thats a bit of variation there.