218 replies to this topic

[Foust]

Kaelus, on 14 December 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

I'll just leave this here....

*I took out the image, look above.

le sigh

Would it not be reasonable to think that this current "stand on the square" implementation is just a place holder for the grander version depicted in the article?

I believe that we are getting just a few pieces of the conquest puzzle, in light of the information presented in the PC Gamer article. I'm looking forward to the finished product and will continue to enjoy the content that they freely deliver.

[Kaelus]

Foust, on 14 December 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Would it not be reasonable to think that this current "stand on the square" implementation is just a place holder for the grander version depicted in the article?

I believe that we are getting just a few pieces of the conquest puzzle, in light of the information presented in the PC Gamer article. I'm looking forward to the finished product and will continue to enjoy the content that they freely deliver.

Yet another placeholder? It sounds nothing like the article however. Tired of placeholders. Want meat, or at least fix the game of it's myriad bugs.

[Pugastrius]

While this is still speculation at this point (since we haven't been able to test it), I suspect this will be a straight up terrible game mode.

Primary Concerns:

Quote

Encouraging Seperation: Any map design that encourages PuGs to split up is going to be a flat out dissaster without respawns. If Respawns existed (say like Arathi Basin in WoW) then this isn't such a big deal because the "Stragglers" get picked off and are just sent back to join the rest of the group, no permanent damage done.

Speed Trumps Tonnage? We don't really know "how long" it will take to win via capping, so it's tough to say at this point. However there is extreme value in being able to look for the undefended nodes (and all but one node at a time should be undefended or you have the seperation problem discussed above).

[Alois Hammer]

One Medic Army, on 13 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Well, it will at least keep base cap from being a viable tactic.

Yep, now it'll be "Resource Collector Cap."

[Kaijin]

zverofaust, on 13 December 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

On the contrary, the fact that deaths will still be permanent in MWO will drastically alter how Conquest in MWO is played vs MWLL/any other respawn multiplayer game. Sadly I feel this fact will make the intricacies of base control a distant second to simply blasting people apart. In the end, we may jujst get a failed game mode to replace our current failed game mode.

You're forgetting the 'dropship mode' idea. If that's still in the works, it could be added to any other mode.

[Cache]

PANZERBUNNY, on 13 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

A game mode like this is going to need maps 4-5 times larger than our biggest maps.

Desert is coming next month (80% chance for 15 January) with Alpine a month later. I know Desert is supposed to be quite a bit larger than anything we have now. That gives PGI a month to see if/how we can break Conquest Mode on tested maps before we hit the big, new map. No complaints here.

[Foust]

Kaelus, on 14 December 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Yet another placeholder? It sounds nothing like the article however. Tired of placeholders. Want meat, or at least fix the game of it's myriad bugs.

My point is simply that there is more to come and that we should not judge the whole on a single part. It is important to express valid concerns with the game mode, however we haven't even played it in the version that has been presented let alone the version depicted in the PC Gamer article.

Yes MWO has bugs. Development takes time. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt considering the length of time in development and the improvements I have seen in my time in the beta.

[Phoenix 1]

hmmm. This is not Mechwarrior 'Conquest'. It's starcraft resource gathering. I was hoping designers would come out with a more creative way to use the abilities of our Mechs/Lances ... than just babysit nodes. Not meaning to sound ungrateful, but not what I expected.

[pied]

Havn't ever played a domination styled match without respawns before.

I do hope to see a lot more in the way of ambushing with this game mode, and hopefully smaller groups of mechs sticking together, rather than a whole team moving around as one. But I'm thinking slow mechs are going to hate this mode, as they will take more of a defensive/reactionary role compared to fast mechs.
Looking at the base placement of Caldera, it seems like long-range mechs will probably head for the center of the map first, so we may expect a brief brawl at the start of many matches there. Will be neat to see how this all evolves.

[Khobai]

This isnt Conquest. Conquest has respawning, reinforcement tickets that slowly bleed away, and strategic objectives which slow your ticket bleed and often convey other global bonuses to your team.

Not saying this game mode wont be fun. But lets not call it Conquest when its clearly not. Call it something more appropriate like Capture-and-Hold.

Capture-and-Hold: capturing bases to gain points, and whoever gets to a certain number of points first or has the most points when time runs out is the winner.

Conquest: each team starts with a certain number of tickets. your tickets decrease whenever you die and respawn. Additionally your tickets slowly bleed away. holding objectives slows this bleed rate. but also holding objectives often confers other bonuses (like holding a repair bay might let you repair mechs, holding a hyperpulse generator might give a global sensor bonus, holding an airfield might let your commander call in airstrikes, etc...)

Conquest is a much more complex and involved gamemode... thats what I thought we were getting. Apparently not :\

Edited by Khobai, 14 December 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[Pugastrius]

The Way Conquest Should have been Done:

Set up:

Quote

1) The map is divided into 10 "control points" (Think an entire row on the battlegrid) from one side of the map to the other.
2) Each team starts with the 5 closest to them
3) Each player starts with 4 mech "lives"

Game Play:

Quote

1) Each "Control Point" generates reources ever second.

2) Capping of each "controll point" is blocked 1 for 1 and would take 30 seconds if you overpower by just 1 mech
(15 seconds for 2, 10 seconds for 3 and so on)

3) Each "Controll Point" must be captured "In succession" (this forces players to fight eachother).

4) Players always respawn at their original start locations (so the team losing the battle will always respawn closer to the front lines than the team winning, helping keep the match even).

5) "Control Points" grant increasingly more Resources / Second the further into enemy territory you go, the game ends when a team has eliminated all the opponents mechs (unlikely) or the a team has acquired 4500 Resources. This would make games last no longer than 15 minutes, and will be won in less than 4 minutes if all "Capture Points" are controlled.

Unlike most other modes that I've seen proposed and implemented this design encourages PvP, which is why we're here.

Edited by Pugastrius, 14 December 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[xRaeder]

Yet another example of poorly thought out design if there are indeed no respawns. Will the incompetence ever end?

[Mangonel TwoSix]

TruePoindexter, on 13 December 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

If they put all 8 mechs to one node you control every other node and if it's anything like the other domination modes I've played you're going to win in about a minute.

As long as the cap rates are linear it will take over 8 minutes to cap controlling 3 points. From their screen shots it looks like you get 1 point per 2 seconds that you control a point.

Sounds interesting though. So many possibilities.

[B4DKARM4]

Atheose, on 14 December 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I swear, people will find a way to ***** no matter what happens.

This game mode will eliminate the lamest part of Assault currently: sneaky ECM base rushes where the game ends in 3 minutes without either team firing a shot.


Because whiners like him get more enjoyment from crying about the game than actually playing it.

No because im actually working right now and like to check in from time to time to see what new boneheaded things PGI puts out.

I still check up on swtor every so often for a good laugh at the fail that game is spiraling into as well, even though I havent played that game in months.

I find this all very humorous. This is good for a random chuckle and nothing more to me. Right on par with internet memes and cat pics.

Its awesome. Its pretty much the same with most games now a days. You hav the people who are crying for a better product, they are **** on and made fun of because god forbid we want a quality product we can all enjoy. You have the apologists that think its their god given duty to defend and protect the developers against any kind of critisim.

But yeah, I digress. Please, carry on with your pros and cons as to why a simple multi base capture is a fun and exciting game mode. I expect that if you believe that, you are easily amused and will continue to fund anything else pgi decides to squirt out into your waiting mouths.

[Cerlin]

Freaking Awesome. It will be a pretty good mode that forces battles into more strategic locations, yes please! I am feeling "The devs played mechwarrior living legends too." Not that I am complaining, Loved that game. +1 devs.

[Pugastrius]

Quote

Sounds interesting though. So many possibilities.

No the possibilities are very limited.

Possibilities:
1) Are you in a big and slow mech? Stay in the main group
2) Are you in a very fast mech without an ECM? Stay in the main group
3) Are you in a very fast mech with an ECM? Direct your team to weakest point on your opponents team

The game is won simply by having a very slight numbers advantage (since they won't be able to take advantage of the fact that everyone is in one main raiding party).

The Only real Counter to this is if neither team has slow mechs.

[Khobai]

uh i dont even see the point of taking the bases... just kill the other team. if theyre dead they cant recapture bases.

Edited by Khobai, 14 December 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Cache]

Khobai, on 14 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

uh i dont even see the point of taking the bases... just kill the other team. if theyre dead they cant recapture bases.

Good luck chasing them down when there are no longer only two capture points to trap them.

[Khobai]

Quote

Good luck chasing them down when there are no longer only two capture points to trap them.

maybe you didnt notice but the maps are SMALL. and the one map that isnt small (caustic) its very easy to spot where the other team is.

[Buzzkillin]

Not liking you can alternately win by destroying the other team, what's to stop it from just turning into an assault match?