82 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Mr Beefy, on 28 August 2016 - 01:02 PM, said:

This is really simple, want more C-bills at the end of a match....play conquest! It pays way more per match. I select it everytime I see it pop up. Always will.

+1 I always vote for it. Maps also have different spawn points just to change things up a little.

Idealsuspect, on 28 August 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Coze people who use teamates as meat shield (ie, myself who only aims for KMDD and will refuse to help the team when solo dropping, particularly in FP) don't like when one or 2 go cap in differents directions

Fixed, for accuracy's sake.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 28 August 2016 - 07:33 PM.

[Dee Eight]

I like conquest the best. It also pays the best.

In 736 games, I've made over 148.8 million c-bills from conquest mode. That's 202k per game on average. For skirmish and assault I average 128k per game.

Edited by Dee Eight, 28 August 2016 - 07:56 PM.

[FalconerGray]

IMO, Conquest is the best mode. But then again, this game is far, far from what I expected / hoped it would be.

And not an opinion, but an obvious cause for much of the salt, is that many players have no idea how to effectively play Conquest, make simple tactical errors over and over again and then wonder why they have such a bad time......then do it all again!

[Idealsuspect]

justcallme A S H, on 28 August 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

bullcheat

Hehe how it's possible to aim for KMDD and in same time don't help the team ( you're brilliant indeed )
Maybe for you doing KMDD is anti-play...
Lol damn fake tier 1 you smell the lrm boat guy who begin to play when he ask people " to hold target" on teamchat then never communicate again.

Well if team is full of potatoes, you can call this a "bunch of brainless pugs" instead a "team".
A bunch of brainless pugs don't care about be helped or help theirs teamates.
Also yea solo dropping mode ON, most kill and most damage mode enabled. No problem with that.

[justcallme A S H]

And there it is, because you don't understand the key importance of pushing with a team, sharing armour and "sniping" the entire time.

You've just proven my entire point, didn't even have to ask, thanks!

Anyone that knows me, knows I am not a LRM boater

[El Bandito]

Hmm, if I calculate average C-Bill and XP gain per mode from this:




I actually earned most C-Bills on Domination, per match. Which can be explained by me picking Domination whenever I stacked enough votes on my LRM boat. Then it's feeding on pug tears time.
Skirmish rewards are low cause most matches happened back when rewards were not buffed, I think.

Domination 189685.3 CB, 1794.6 XP

Conquest 186702.2 CB, 1661 XP

Assault 154156.5 CB, 1643.4 XP

Skirmish 126534.8 CB, 1230.7 XP


For FW, Invasion mode gives me more C-Bills per match, but Scouting is so easy to do repeatedly.

Invasion 533305.5 CB, 5863.6 XP

Counter Attack 520462.1 CB, 5263.6 XP

Scouting 123813.7 CB, 1470.3 XP

Edited by El Bandito, 28 August 2016 - 10:17 PM.

[zagibu]

Conquest is the best mode.

[mogs01gt]

Saying the game mode is great for cbills proves the game mode sucks.. You should pick the mode for the play-ability, not because it brings in cbills. Playing just for cbills is a huge reason why this game has a small player base. It forces bad play style.

[Mr Beefy]

Just played Dom on Alpine peaks.... other team let us take the circle, and took the timer down to 10 seconds. They simply wouldn't push, and we did. I got one kill... not sure if i was the only one. We won, I only made 67000 cbills, 400xp.... what a joke! Playing conquest isn't just about the higher c-bills earned... if played right, it does bring out some of the best matches. Sure, I agree, it needs way more depth to the mode, as do every mode in this game. Regardless..... I don't just pick it for higher cbills, I pick it because I play it by the objectives listed, and I do so even when I bring a Assault to the match.

Edited by Mr Beefy, 29 August 2016 - 05:42 AM.

[Trollfeed]

If conquest plays so similar to skirmish why people don't vote for it even if the payout is bigger? It's simply because conquest isn't decided by heavy/assault murderball in some maps. Fast lights and mediums have a quite lot to say how conquest match goes and some people just simply don't like it when some jock in commando marginalises his metavomit mech.

I always pick conquest because then I have something else to do than wait with everyone else in a spot decided by the map meta.

[Violent Tendencies]

Sorry..its not even a close contest. Domination is the worst game mode.

[Myantra]

Conquest has the potential to be the most fun mode in the game. However, it simply will never work as intended without respawn, and turning the "resources" into a ticket system. I will gladly donate a copy of Battlefield 4 to the developers if they want to see Conquest as it should be.

When you can win any mode simply by killing a finite number of the enemy, there is no real incentive to concentrate on objectives. This is exacerbated even further with a scoring system that always rewards damage more than anything else. Conquest, Assault, and Domination are rarely lost because the other team outcapped you, captured your base, or ran down the timer in the circle. It happens, but not often. If capping, holding, and defending the objectives had more weight, you might actually see combat occurring in a manner other than "all modes are no-respawn team deathmatch". On every map, in every mode, most combat takes place in the same area. These maps have a lot of potential, but the only time most of the map is even seen is when you are in a light taking the very long way around to get behind the enemy.

[Clownwarlord]

A lot of people hate conquest because teams spread out and cause themselves to lose during PUG matches.

[Myantra]

Captain Luffy, on 29 August 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

A lot of people hate conquest because teams spread out and cause themselves to lose during PUG matches.

I prefer Conquest if I am in a light, as I will go cap and then harass the enemy. I look for heavies and assaults that are foolishly going to cap solo. If in any other weight class, the objectives are irrelevant to me as I am engaging in the main fight. I only really enjoy Conquest as it is currently in a light.

[Coolant]

so many threads on this OP, just look them up. I've said it before and I'll say it again, any game mode where you can stand on a plot of land (not even a real base) and theoretically win a game without firing a shot is not a game mode I want to play. This is Mechwarrior not Capwarrior. You could code another game completely separate and not have anything to do with BT or Mechwarrior about just capping.

[zagibu]

Coolant, on 29 August 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

so many threads on this OP, just look them up. I've said it before and I'll say it again, any game mode where you can stand on a plot of land (not even a real base) and theoretically win a game without firing a shot is not a game mode I want to play. This is Mechwarrior not Capwarrior. You could code another game completely separate and not have anything to do with BT or Mechwarrior about just capping.

This is a really bad argument. Since both teams have to cap the same points, it's hard to imagine a conquest game in which no shots are fired. I don't think I've ever been in one. I've been in pacifistic assault games, though, but that was just stupidity on both sides.

[Idealsuspect]

justcallme A S H, on 28 August 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

And there it is, because you don't understand the key importance of pushing with a team, sharing armour and "sniping" the entire time.

You've just proven my entire point, didn't even have to ask, thanks!

Anyone that knows me, knows I am not a LRM boater

Hehe you suck you don't even quote don't be afraid it is just a forum you arent in the streets, look yours feets and walk hard bro

Edit : Not one sniper build in my sig but keep going you are brilliant indeed (sarcasms ).

Idealsuspect, on 28 August 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Well if team is full of potatoes, you can call this a "bunch of brainless pugs" instead a "team".
A bunch of brainless pugs don't care about be helped or help theirs teamates.
Also yea solo dropping mode ON, most kill and most damage mode enabled. No problem with that.

Or a "bunch of not really brilliant peoples"

Edited by Idealsuspect, 29 August 2016 - 02:55 PM.

[Coolant]

zagibu, on 29 August 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

This is a really bad argument. Since both teams have to cap the same points, it's hard to imagine a conquest game in which no shots are fired. I don't think I've ever been in one. I've been in pacifistic assault games, though, but that was just stupidity on both sides.

No. Now if I said you will not, or never, or even most likely will never fire a shot then that would be a bad argument. You are using the logical fallacy:

Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.

Let us compare Conquest to Skirmish. Skirmish is a game mode that my team must kill other mechs because it is the only objective; i.e. the only way to win. Conquest has more than one objective, more than one way to win. Now you might argue that having more objectives is better or more enjoyable such as having to Conquest an actual base, but since Conquest doesn't involve anything near as complex, then you would need to argue that standing on a plot of land not much bigger than a mech is actually fun. You need to convince me of that. Go ahead and convince me that standing on a plot of ground while doing absolutely nothing is fun. But, you would say, maybe that isn't fun, but when it's contested it is. But, that is exactly my point. When it's contested. There are times when it is not. And, even if a capture point is contested teams are often split up, so while a few mechs are fighting some are not. While you may be involved in combat, I may not be. That's exactly why I despise Conquest.

Edited by Coolant, 29 August 2016 - 02:51 PM.

[zagibu]

Coolant, on 29 August 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

No. Now if I said you will not, or never, or even most likely will never fire a shot then that would be a bad argument. You are using the logical fallacy:

Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against the original wording.

Which word did I change the meaning of?

Also, I like conquest, because it breaks up the deathball and creates asymmetric encounters. I agree that it is sometimes pretty uneventful, but at other times it's also very exhiliarating. The other gamemodes on the other hand usually boil down to deathmatch without respawn, and I already found that boring in Counterstrike way back in time.

[Void Angel]

Kyrie, on 28 August 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

All over the forum there is constant griping about the fact that every game-mode boils to TDM, endless form into deathball and win style matches; yes whenever there is a chance to vote to play a mode that might break up that dynamic, such as Conquest, there is an absolute refusal to play that mode. Its gotten to the point that even when I try to employ a x8 or x9 multiplier I still get outvoted. :-)

So the forum posts say one thing, the practical reality in the field is that people want TDM.

Well, the problem (aside from complaining about "Team Deathmatch" being really a complaint against teamwork) with Conquest is that the best tactic to use in Conquest is the best tactic to use in Skirmish and Assault. Group up, find the enemy, kill him with fire and maneuver. While the capture points do matter, they're something you can pick up on the way while you move to contact; just something you want to keep an eye on while you kill the enemy. Almost never will the capture points turn around a match for the team that lost the main engagement. But the presence of the capture points gives more opportunity for the stupid your valued teammates to screw up. It's a lot like the Eye of the Storm battleground in World of Warcraft: the place was Arathi Basin in space, and people knew how to play Arathi Basin; you just control three of the five points - but in EotS, one of the points was special, and you had all sorts of idiocy pugging that battleground as a result.

This is not to say that Conquest is a bad game mode; with the recently increased rewards for resources, it can be a welcome change of pace. One of the major differences is that people do split up at first, so an aggressive team or lance has a much better chance of getting into a small, unorthodox fight, making the matches potentially much more interesting.

So whether or not you like Conquest is really up to your playing style. Just don't fall for fanciful stories about PGI (or IGP) deliberately sabotaging the game modes to "chase off the real fans so they can get money from the stupid mainstream FPS gamers." Aside from the obvious fact that this is the opinion of a wannabe nerd hipster ("It's a real Battletech thing; you probably wouldn't get it,") it's also a completely silly conspiracy theory: "This claim that would occur to no reasonable person is obvious to me because of my perspicacity and intellect!! Wake up, sheeple! Look at me, aren't I perceptive and edgy?" Like all conspiracy theories, it ignores the total picture in favor of a simplistic viewpoint that says more about the inside of the theorist's head than the real world outside of it.