150 replies to this topic

[Deamhan]

I've created a thread stating this....

Don't go for cap. Ever.

You earn more c-bills/xp through combating your opponents. You get the bonus reward for winning regardless of how your team wins. You, as the team that lost, can earn more reward fighting to the last man, than you can winning from an early cap victory.

[Isolani]

I was pretty down on Conquest at first, but after playing it a lot now, I like it much more than Assault. Yes, probably about 85% of the matches I have played ended in one side being slaughtered, but 10-15% or so end up as resource wins. The resource wins are really close sometimes too, so it can be fun. I don't play Assault at all anymore.

[Steel Talon]

Now, when rearms & repairs are gone, there is no more reason to not include modes with a form of respawn & conquest is the mode for that.
Personaly dont know other game that tried to create battlefield inspired conquest without any respawn, maybe because it simply doesnt work.
As new non-respawn mode, inspire by WoTs encounter with one big base in the middle, big enough to create whole fighting area.

MSG to join platoon yellers:
This is F2P game, 80%+ matches will always be PUGs, even in future metagame, they will be only matched as faction -- all diference.

[Mechsniper]

disagree on respawns unless an entire game mode(s) is made for it and it stays only in that/those modes. Have no problem with this game mode, it requires an entirely different lance makeup and strategy in general. It is harder to pug for this mode due to that. Nature of the game mode.

[Zero Neutral]

Hi there, you aren't getting respawns.

[Draxos Synge]

Steel Talon, on 24 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Now, when rearms & repairs are gone, there is no more reason to not include modes with a form of respawn & conquest is the mode for that.
Personaly dont know other game that tried to create battlefield inspired conquest without any respawn, maybe because it simply doesnt work.
As new non-respawn mode, inspire by WoTs encounter with one big base in the middle, big enough to create whole fighting area.

MSG to join platoon yellers:
This is F2P game, 80%+ matches will always be PUGs, even in future metagame, they will be only matched as faction -- all diference.

This isn't World of Tanks, stop treating it like it is and things will be much better. Tried it out yesterday and wasn't to impressed. Everyone meet in the middle and beat the snot out of each other. Thats an *****'s armored game, no tactics, no strategy, just brawl. Maybe the reason this doesn't work for people without respawn is because they don't have the skills to work as a team and use some semblance of intelligence, and no an Atlas loaded with nothing but LRMs isn't intelligence, its a waste of an assault mech.

Edited by Draxes Synge, 25 December 2012 - 06:31 AM.

[Icebound]

At least it filtered out some of the cap racers. There needs to be a dedicated deathmatch mode though.

[Skyfaller]

Arcane Azmadi, on 22 December 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Absolutely NO difference whatsoever from Assault mode. I have not had one game yet which has gone even close to a points win, they've ALL been decided when one side has been wiped out. Last game me and an ally snuck up the left flank and took one of the points, then I slipped around and grabbed the enemy's spawn point and it did not make the slightest LICK of difference because the entire enemy team simply rushed my team and blew them all away while I was running around playing silly buggers with the objectives. I should have been in the fight from the start and not farting around with control points that don't do anything to help my team. I knew I was just wasting my effort when I was duelling an enemy Stalker over a point (in my ECM Raven, natch), only for 5 more enemy mechs to come in behind and tear me to shreds because I was the only man alive.

Seriously, this mode is a complete waste of time in a game like MWO. You need to be able to respawn for a "king of the hill" mode to be worth it, otherwise which team gets to be "king" is determined in the time-honoured manner of "we ha' the crown i'faith and will kill any whoreson who trys to take it away, by the Lord Harry!"

The problem is the small maps. All maps should be at least 4x bigger than they are now.

Currently a very slow mech (20kph) can, in the first minute of the game, position itself so that it can fire long range weapons at 90% of the map area (not counting terrain).

If the maps were bigger then maneuver warfare becomes part of the game. Speed would gain a much higher role and would make the lighter chassis, particularly the mediums, the mainstay mech due to it being the only mech that can go fast and carry decent weaponry (heavy/assault mechs too slow or would sacrifice too much weaponry tonnage for the much larger engines).

[Ryolacap]

Well the real problem is both sides are to do the same thing in both conquest and assualt. Start with asymetric objectives and then design maps around that idea and things will developed much differently.

[Yokaiko]

Deamhan, on 23 December 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

I've created a thread stating this....

Don't go for cap. Ever.

You earn more c-bills/xp through combating your opponents. You get the bonus reward for winning regardless of how your team wins. You, as the team that lost, can earn more reward fighting to the last man, than you can winning from an early cap victory.

While true.

There are time when you cap, if you hauled 4 assaults all the way to their base just to find that they had tunnel rushed. Cap it. No way you are going to make it back across the map in time to save it and if you do you will be so spread it'll just mean you are going to get farmed.

[Wintersdark]

Conquest just needs the points to accrue substantially faster. I understand why they started out with it the way it is, but... yeah. Playing for a point victory is painfully slow, and as such even trying pretty much ensures you'll lose. If your team splits up, and captures all 5 points early in the match, but then loses a couple mechs and one point to the massed enemies, you're done. They can then split into 2 lances of 4, take 2 more points, kill another couple mechs... lather, rinse, repeat. Their two lances of 4 can continue taking 2 points at a time, and any defenders have no choice but flight. If points built faster, then this would be theoretically possibe, but as it stands if your team splits up and the other team does not, you lose. Period.

[OvenproofRhino]

I have noticed that the tactics of Conquest are quite different than Assault. In my experiences instead of one large cohesive unit, I have seen both side split into lances or even pairs to try and claim resources. Several matches have been won (or lost) due to resources being gathered quickly.

A thought on making the game mode less Deathmatchish is to either increase the speed at which resources are gathered or lower the cap.

[Steel Talon]

Mechsniper, on 24 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

disagree on respawns unless an entire game mode(s) is made for it and it stays only in that/those modes. Have no problem with this game mode, it requires an entirely different lance makeup and strategy in general. It is harder to pug for this mode due to that. Nature of the game mode.

But conquest is right mode for that, it was based on it since BF1942

[Distratus]

I'm not impressed by the Conquest mode, I wouldn't say I hate it, but I wouldn't say I like it either. If they were to remove two of the conquest points (the base ones), and have 3 conquest points spread out in a triangular shape (Alpha, Beta, Gamma), then I think it would be a bit more enjoyable because each point will have two possible fronts. I see it as reducing the points will make it a lot more likely that the two teams will meet on the battlefield. On top of that, since the base points would be removed, it's sort of like a 3-Point King of the Hill, yet still Conquest.

They definitely need to adjust the payout for winning via capping, because right now it's more lucrative to brawl than it is to cap and win.

[Bully_Hayes]

Personally I like the mode but there are somethings I question.First and foremost the number of players on a side is too low to really make it work properly. I am not a big fan of respawns so perhaps an increase to 12 players a side may be what it needs along with a change in how the scoring works. I would have to say conservatively 50% of the match's I have played ran as advertised the other half degenerated into brawls. So why did they turn into brawls......the answer to that is simple,people chose to play that way. Folks want to blame PGI for creating the game mode but the reality of it is that the problem is a player one,we the players chose to play the way we did.

We as players want freedom of choice but some of us if things don't go as planned and they get there backsides handed to them look for someone to blame. They want the Devs to force players to play the way they think they should.

[soapyfrog]

Distratus, on 25 December 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

They definitely need to adjust the payout for winning via capping, because right now it's more lucrative to brawl than it is to cap and win.

I don't see the problem with this. This game should be about mechs fighting each other. The primary mission in any match, any game mode, should be to destroy the other team. The victory conditions of resource victory or base capping should only be resorted to if the other team refuses to fight.

The objectives exist to FORCE COMBAT. If you aren't getting to grips with the enemy then you are doing it wrong.

[meteorol]

Can someone name one game which has a conquest mode on tiny maps, 8vs8 without respawn besides MW:O?
I can't think of a single one (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong). Why is noone playing conquest on dust2 in CS without respawn?
Because it doesn't work.
Do you think all the games with conquest mode are using respawn because they are games for idiots who are not able to use some kind of tactic? Nope. They use respawn because the conquest mode needs respawn to work.

Devalue one resource (player lives) in order to force the player to win by controlling the other resource (bases). This doesn't work if the players can easily win by getting as few as 8 kills. Right now, winning by killing the enemy is like 3 times faster than winning through bases, which is the total opposite of what a conquest mode actually should be. Right now, conquest mode is nothing more than TDM.

If they drastically increase the benefits of basecaping in order to make the players cap bases, it will result in 16 guys not shooting each other, running circles over the map to make the most profit (which will suck aswell).

There is nothing wrong with being against respawns in MW:O in general, but without respawns you wont get a working conquest mode in the current game environment. (Atleast not a conquest mode like we are knowing it).

No respawn conquest would need huge maps and number of players to work, but since the devs can't even fix the netcode for tiny maps and 16 players, we will never see this.

Harmatia, on 23 December 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I think conquest mode is fine and plays pretty much like any version of Battlefield (the best conquest mode?), except it counts up and not down.

I'm a Battlefield player from the first minute (started with the BF1942 demo) and this is simply not true. An average conquest match in Battlefield lasts 30 min up to 1 hour or more (depending on the server settings). Bases switching their "owners" several times per match. (Unless one team is really alot better, then the baseraping will start).

An average conquest match in MW:O lasts about 3-5 minutes, often the bases dont even switch 1 single time.
The conquest mode plays nowhere near like any version of Battlefield. Not even close.

Edited by meteorol, 25 December 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Draxes Synge, on 25 December 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

This isn't World of Tanks, stop treating it like it is and things will be much better. Tried it out yesterday and wasn't to impressed. Everyone meet in the middle and beat the snot out of each other. Thats an *****'s armored game, no tactics, no strategy, just brawl.

Sounds like MWO right now.

[Thirdstar]

Yokaiko, on 25 December 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Sounds like MWO right now.

That's really not how WOT plays in anything but Tier 1 starter battles.

[Yokaiko]

Icebound, on 25 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

At least it filtered out some of the cap racers. There needs to be a dedicated deathmatch mode though.

They should put assault mode back like it was and put in a deathmatch mode where there are no bases, you spawn randomly on the map with your team and go from there.

Thirdstar, on 25 December 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

That's really not how WOT plays in anything but Tier 1 starter battles.

That is still ALL that MWO is right now.