38 replies to this topic

[Osiris1975]

PGI recently announced the details of the new Conquest Mode, and while any new game modes are welcome, I'm skeptical that it'll provide a significantly different experience than the 'assault' game mode we have available. Yes, it does eliminate base-cap-to-win strategies, and I think in general it will promote more exciting gameplay. However, it sounds to me like it'll likely play out more like "Team Deathmatch" because most likely, the most efficient way to win the round will be to simply eliminate the the enemy.

Some have argued that this won't work because the game mode will favor fast mechs - but so what? If match-making by mech class remains, fast mechs will be paired with fast mechs on the other team, so speed will not be much of an advantage.

The vision of Conquest Mode PGI has announced comes from a "MMFPS" mentality, and ignores the fundamental difference between MWO and a game like BF3 - respawning. Conquest modes work in those games because players respawn. This takes the onus away from killing the enemy as quickly as possible, and puts the focus on capturing certain points.

PGI needs to rethink the game modes with this in mind. There are game mode concepts that can create objectives besides basecap and deathmatch, which is essentially what we currently have, and still avoid having a respawn system. Just a few examples:

• Protect The Leader: A mech on each team is randomly tagged as the 'leader'. The objective of each team is to protect their leader while simultaneously trying to kill the other team's leader. The team that kills the enemy leader first wins.
  
• Escort the Convoy: The defending team spawns with a convoy of vehicles that they must escort from one end of the map to the other. The attacking team must destroy all the vehicles in the convoy to win, while the defenders win if at least one vehicle makes it to the destination. Payout is based on the overall result + the number of destroyed/ surviving vehicles.
  
• Defend the Germanium Mines: A variation on the their conquest mode, where one team is tasked with defending the Germanium mines, and the other tasked with destroying them. A large pay-out bonus is given to the attacker for each mine destroyed, and for the defender, each mine defended. This gives the attacker the incentive to destroy the mines rather than defeat the mechs.

While these are just examples, the main point is this - PGI should not look to MMFPS games for inspiration for game modes.

[ZonbiBadger]

How about you wait until it is out before complaining about how flawed it is? Haha.

[EvilCow]

The risk that go and kill a divided enemy the most efficient way to win this.

Probably it should be a respawn mode like MWLL does.

[vifoxe]

Without respawn? Yes.

ZonbiBadger, on 14 December 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

How about you wait until it is out before complaining about how flawed it is? Haha.

If designers followed that philosophy then things would never get done on time.

[Penance]

The way I read it it basically plays out like a Conquest Battlefield match.

People will be running between caps / staying at them for defense.

They say that killing the opposing team is a win condition, that would lead me to believe respawns are not part of this. It almost seems like they have 2 modes that are almost basically the same, the main difference being the 3 extra bases to cap and protect.

Even though there probably was info left out, I hope the mode has at least one of the following to help differentiate it:

1- respawn / lives - players get 1 or 2 / deaths

2- increase player count to 10/12 man teams, to account for that people will be very spread out.

It's still early I know, but as I said, the way they describe the mode, it's basically the same as the current one but with some more points on the map.

It's almost as if the extra points are made for the PUGS who like to stray.

Edited by Penance, 14 December 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Mangonel TwoSix]

I think lack of respawn makes it more interesting. It's going to take somewhere in the ballpark of 9 minutes to win by cap. You do bring up a fair point though. In organized play let teams bring whatever they want. No weight balancing.

I want to see teams think about what they bring and have to adjust tactics accordingly. Because, to me, evenly weighted teams are not as interesting as a heavy team trying to stop a faster team trying to cap them out.

[Kommisar]

It is going to depend on a few other factors.

1) Capture Time - This is the big one. If cap times are quick AND resource collection times are quick then a deathmatch, stay in one group and "kill'm all" approach could fail. You'll kill some mechs. Maybe the most; but the other team will get the G and win the battle.

2) Cap Radius - What is the tactical approach to disputing, attacking and defending the zones. If they are small, like the current bases, then it is really straight forward. Bigger zones and things become more complex. Unfortunately, the current maps, being small, will likely prohibt large cap zones. But, they could surprise me and go outside the conventional thinking on this one. I would try it on at least one map.

3) Flag/Cap Locations - How they will be placed on the maps. If I can park an Atlas on one flag and overwatch another with effective long range fire, then that makes those types of mech very valuable in the game. If not, then speed is the big factor. In fact, if they ever get the net code sorted and bring the light mechs back down from Mount Olympus, then this style of play could really make the Medium Mechs invaluable to a team. They would be fast enough to react around the flags and bring more armor and weapons than a light. You know, the compromise of capabilities that should make them the "go to" mainstay mechs for units.


I'm looking forward to this a lot. It will not be perfect by any means. It will need tweaking. And, hopefully, the tweaking will be done on a map to map basis. I'm also hoping this desert map will be nice and big and make deployment of mechs around a map be a tough and unforgiving tactical choice. We get big enough maps it will completely shake up the whole tactical paradigm of the game.

----------------------------

Also, remember that for this version of conquest the payout at the end of each round is going to be heavily influenced on germanium production. The more you harvest (cap) the more CBills you walk away from. If it is geared right, this means that winning through capping will payout a LOT more than wiping out the enemy team.

Edited by Kommisar, 14 December 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[Bubba Wilkins]

They can't implement any possible respawn system without completely breaking every other mechanic.

[Gigastrike]

If the example pictures are from an honestly played match, it should take about 10 minutes (double checked with math) for a relatively even game, or about the same amount of time it usually takes to wipe out the enemy team in assault. As long as the rewards for winning by points exceed rewards from killing, I think the game will usually end with one of the teams crippled, but alive.

[Lupin]

I would suggest playing it first before posting topic.

[Roadbeer]

General Discussion forum people crack me up.

It's not even out yet, you haven't spent one second playing it... yet here you are, opining on it like an expert.

[Khobai]

1) players will always tend to follow the path of least resistance to win.

2) if killing the enemy team is easier than completing the conquest mode objectives then no one will complete the conquest mode objectives. simple as that.

3) respawn exists as a means of removing kills as a victory condition and forcing players to focus more on the objectives.

[LaXin84]

I agree with the OP. Needs larger teams (by a fair amount), or respawn mechanic (which I don't believe they probably even have code for, so that's unlikely). The current 8v8 system will fall on its face with this much area to cover with this few players. The best bet will be that players team up into small fire teams quickly with combined fire support (light/heavy, 2 med, assault/med, brawler/standoff, etc) and move just a couple or a few mechs at a time to a few points and hope to be tactically better than the mechs they face. This of course will be countered by a team sticking together and just sweeping through the points and knocking out mechs in turn...

I dunno, I still see it being more of a pain in the *** chasing around mechs rather than a large battle. I feel like my Gausscat will be more effective, as instead of chasing crap around I'll just pick stuff off from far back and not bother with effort...

Time to reconfigure for more ammo.

[vifoxe]

Bubba Wilkins, on 14 December 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

They can't implement any possible respawn system without completely breaking every other mechanic.

like what?

You all should listen to khobai, he know's what's up.

Edited by vifoxe, 14 December 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

^{I worry the current maps might be a little too small, but that isn't really a huge deal. I have a feeling most matches will will end with 8 kills rather than filling the cap meter, but that's fine too. You won't be able to camp to win in conquest mode; if the enemy is getting resources faster than you, you have to go on the offensive. That will be an interesting change that will lead to much more violent matches. Overall I expect it will be fine, I'm not worried.}

Edited by Warrax the Chaos Warrior, 14 December 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[Pygar]

Nope...new mode sounds good, will play out much the same as battles do now, but with the emphasis on the midfield cap points instead of the ones in the farthest corners of the map.

I don't think it's going to be any more dominated by lights than things are now, in fact I see most teams sticking with the 3 ECM scout and 5 DPS strats they are now, with teams actually spending less time playing cat and mouse or hanging back waiting for the enemy to show up. Overall I think there will be more kill wins and less capture wins.

I've seen "all lights-all rush" teams in 8v8s, they don't instawin...in fact they are not only killable, but since they are built to rush they are highly predictable. (you know they are coming to the base, so might as well just stay near base and wait for em, set up for best fire positions)

Now, on the other hand...I do think that the new mode will be really difficult to play well in PUGs- chaotic PUG teams that would be easy meat in assault mode will be even more hopeless in conquest... but oh well, this game is really heavy on the team play, people should just find a team to be on instead of complaining about how PUGs aren't fun for them.

Edited by Pygar, 14 December 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[Osiris1975]

Oh don't get me wrong, I do NOT want a respawn system, and I agree, we'll need to see how the points Kommisar put forth will effect how it plays.

As for the people whining about us having a discussion on the mode, you are missing the point - this is about design philosophy and not just trying to copy-paste game modes from games that have respawn systems into one that does not. When you've been gaming for as long as I have and been in as many beta tests as I have, you don't always need to try something to anticipate flaws.

[MaddMaxx]

Khobai, on 14 December 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

1) players will always tend to follow the path of least resistance to win.

2) if killing the enemy team is easier than completing the conquest mode objectives then no one will complete the conquest mode objectives. simple as that.

3) respawn exists as a means of removing kills as a victory condition and forcing players to focus more on the objectives.

1) Dev cannot FIX that. That is Human Nature.

2) If this becomes prominent, then the Dev will have snuffed out one of the main Forum gripes to date.

"Base Capping is for Lamer's" as the game will become a fight to the Death... Everyone wins. Yahhh!...

(P.S. I would not skimp on armor, below the waist say, anymore. If you used to do that though.)

3) Dropship is slated to arrive. 4 Mech respawn mode. Again. Everyone wins. Yahhh!...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 December 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[vifoxe]

MaddMaxx, on 14 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

3) Dropship is slated to arrive. 4 Mech respawn mode. Again. Everyone wins. Yahhh!...

I can see that working if the average match rounds don't last too long.

[Penance]

Khobai, on 14 December 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

1) players will always tend to follow the path of least resistance to win.

2) if killing the enemy team is easier than completing the conquest mode objectives then no one will complete the conquest mode objectives. simple as that.

3) respawn exists as a means of removing kills as a victory condition and forcing players to focus more on the objectives.

true, but if all bases can be capped, then the other team can be completely removed. If you play battlefield, there are some conquest maps (like Wake Island) where one teams base is competely capturable. For example, wake island has 5 points, all start under the control of one team. The other team can cap all those points (meanwhile having a base that is out of bounds and uncapturable), and while holding those points, kill the other team since they have no base to respawn at. Sure tickets click away really fast with all the caps controlled, but the actual win was done by killing...in this example.

We still don't know all the details i feel. I'm sure they held some stuff back.


Personally, at this point I really don't care...I'm just happy there is a new mode coming!

Edited by Penance, 14 December 2012 - 08:10 AM.