Seriously it is rare in a conquest mode to get above 100k CB. Even with 750 resources, a couple kills, assists, spotting etc etc.
Really need a boost to CBs earned in conquest. Prior to 18th patch, i was NETTING 150k average. And FYI - net = after RnR.


Resource Conversion Needs A Boost
Started by MouseNo4, Dec 22 2012 04:13 PM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:13 PM
#2
Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:15 PM
I'd say doubling or tripling the bonus you get for resources would encourage teams to try to run up their tickets instead of straight kills.
Of course, without respawns, people are still going to die. So either they actively try to avoid shooting, or they go in with tiny weapon loads to poke each other away from caps.
The game mode is broken. It kind of mixes things up when all you've done for months is straight deathmatch...but in reality it is just another deathmatch with a more complicated base cap condition.
Of course, without respawns, people are still going to die. So either they actively try to avoid shooting, or they go in with tiny weapon loads to poke each other away from caps.
The game mode is broken. It kind of mixes things up when all you've done for months is straight deathmatch...but in reality it is just another deathmatch with a more complicated base cap condition.
#3
Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:32 PM
Nobody else agrees?
#4
Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:48 PM
I'd say double it. Conquest takes longer to play than Assault if you're going to go for a resource win, so that needs to be factored into the equation. Right now Assault earns more c-bills per mission, AND you get to play more missions per hour.
#5
Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:50 PM
Resource collection rate should be exponential rather than linear. For example:
1 resource node = 1 resource/second
2 resource nodes = 3 resources/second
3 resource nodes = 6 resources/second
4 resource nodes = 10 resources/second
5 resource nodes = 15 resources/second
1 resource node = 1 resource/second
2 resource nodes = 3 resources/second
3 resource nodes = 6 resources/second
4 resource nodes = 10 resources/second
5 resource nodes = 15 resources/second
#6
Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:45 PM
Khobai, on 22 December 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:
Resource collection rate should be exponential rather than linear. For example:
1 resource node = 1 resource/second
2 resource nodes = 3 resources/second
3 resource nodes = 6 resources/second
4 resource nodes = 10 resources/second
5 resource nodes = 15 resources/second
1 resource node = 1 resource/second
2 resource nodes = 3 resources/second
3 resource nodes = 6 resources/second
4 resource nodes = 10 resources/second
5 resource nodes = 15 resources/second
I disagree. That would make matches way too quick. Besides, this is entirely off topic.
#7
Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:59 PM
i agree, as of right now there is no strategy involving capping, it is much easier and faster to stick together and hunt loners.
#8
Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:06 PM
iDK, Best strat most of the time right now is to split into 2 groups, cap both outside points, then converge on the middle point, or the enemy base point and pincer anyone in-between your 2 groups. Works wonderfully.
#9
Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:06 PM
The Devs said they would review the rewards in the new year once they have some numbers to work with. Like all things in this game they need a large volume of data from us before they can fine tune the actual numbers.
Personally I think removing RnR was the dumbest thing they have done since reviving 3rd person. There is absolutely no reason not to take the best most expensive to run mech you can afford to buy, this directly violates one of their design pillars which was going to use the economy to force people to run in cheaper to maintain mechs (read lights,mediums and heavies with no expensive upgrades). This ecomomy might not be taking us into the pay to win arena, but it's starting to verge on pay to keep up.
Personally I think removing RnR was the dumbest thing they have done since reviving 3rd person. There is absolutely no reason not to take the best most expensive to run mech you can afford to buy, this directly violates one of their design pillars which was going to use the economy to force people to run in cheaper to maintain mechs (read lights,mediums and heavies with no expensive upgrades). This ecomomy might not be taking us into the pay to win arena, but it's starting to verge on pay to keep up.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users