150 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

If the weapons and mechs are balanced, and the maps are balanced, then everything will be balanced.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Think of Conquest as Deathmatch and it's better.

[Lolroflcake]

I would just like to point out that conquest mode, while is still often decided by which side proves to be the most effective at killing the other, actually changes the way people play the game.

They aren't focusing on one singular game deciding clash so much as many smaller engagements and actually out maneuvering the other team so as to catch said enemies out numbered, or to split up an enemy death ball by simply avoiding them and capping multiple points at once.

It has probably been mentioned at least once already but it doesn't matter what you think of the game mode it definitely is a big change from a normal assault match.

Adding something like respawns to the game mode would completely destroy any element of tension the game mode currently promotes by removing any sort consequence. You would also find it removes most elements of strategy from the game and it would make it even more like a straight up death match then it is now as people would be singularly focused on running in doing as much damage as they can ie: the only strategy would be group up and rush the point making the game even more deathmatchy then it is now.

No respawns is good for conquest so lets keep it that way.

[Alfred VonGunn]

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!"

HUH???????? Huge difference.... We no longer have the game ending because 2 lights with Cap Accelerators ran around to the base...

[SteelRat]

I'm sorry you can't ninja a cap and win by avoiding a fight.

You're whining about losing because your team sucked and all died and you, all by yourself, couldn't win the game? God Forbid we have a game mode that requires team work, in a team game, and some ***** can't just cap win the game without ever firing a shot.

Ya know, I am sorry this isn't a single player game, but when are you people going to realize its a TEAM game that requires TEAM WORK. This was never publicized as a single player game, grow the F up and learn how to work with people instead of whining about losing. I have never see so many cry babies.

Btw, if you don't like conquest mode, don't play it, you do have that option. But I guess its easier to drop on the forums and whine about it, instead of clicking a button and choosing Assault.

[Rackminster]

Lolroflcake, on 23 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I would just like to point out that conquest mode, while is still often decided by which side proves to be the most effective at killing the other, actually changes the way people play the game.

They aren't focusing on one singular game deciding clash so much as many smaller engagements and actually out maneuvering the other team so as to catch said enemies out numbered, or to split up an enemy death ball by simply avoiding them and capping multiple points at once.

I concur.

I've had some great Conquest rounds where the team really pulled together and worked each waypoint and the battle raged between two of them in a way that you wouldn't see in a regular Assault round.

It does change the game, even if only slightly, which isn't a bad thing in any book.

[LoboSG]

Lolroflcake, on 23 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I would just like to point out that conquest mode, while is still often decided by which side proves to be the most effective at killing the other, actually changes the way people play the game.

They aren't focusing on one singular game deciding clash so much as many smaller engagements and actually out maneuvering the other team so as to catch said enemies out numbered, or to split up an enemy death ball by simply avoiding them and capping multiple points at once.

It has probably been mentioned at least once already but it doesn't matter what you think of the game mode it definitely is a big change from a normal assault match.

Adding something like respawns to the game mode would completely destroy any element of tension the game mode currently promotes by removing any sort consequence. You would also find it removes most elements of strategy from the game and it would make it even more like a straight up death match then it is now as people would be singularly focused on running in doing as much damage as they can ie: the only strategy would be group up and rush the point making the game even more deathmatchy then it is now.

No respawns is good for conquest so lets keep it that way.

Respawning also requires strategy/tactics. Typically, in BF where you can spawn on a teammate, people may suicide just to respawn on their teamamte who capping a flag. Thus, when you fight a 'team', you have to make sure you kill every last one. When the last guy is dead, you have to respawn from a faraway point, where you have to spend time to leg it to the flag. Time when the tickets is counting down. Hardly no 'consequence'.

As a backup, you might also set up beacons to respawn. IN MWO, probably something like droppods. The team thus also have to hunt down and destroy such beacons. There is actually a lot of tricks (tactics) involved if respawn is to be added to the mix. Being good at 'killing the other' would not be enough to win.

To be honest, I am not sure the current MWO community is ready for the teamwork it requires. I mean, just 'sticking together' to focus fire is already so hard! lol.

[Nightcrept]

I'm not a big fan of the conquest mode. It doesn't really make much since because 90% of the time the game does indeed end with the other teams death and not a cap.

I have pretty much stopped playing it. Just hit the little blue box and select not to play it.

[Tasorin]

Conquest might actually mean something on a map large enough to hold the speed and pace of MWO. Of course that isn't the case and the Conquest Mode is utter garbage right now as has been most the major game mechanics when they were implemented. What it comes down too is what is PGI going to do with this game mode going forward, and based on the last 6 months of progression the outlook isn't great.

[KhanCipher]

SteelRat, on 23 December 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

I'm sorry you can't ninja a cap and win by avoiding a fight.

You're whining about losing because your team sucked and all died and you, all by yourself, couldn't win the game? God Forbid we have a game mode that requires team work, in a team game, and some ***** can't just cap win the game without ever firing a shot.

Ya know, I am sorry this isn't a single player game, but when are you people going to realize its a TEAM game that requires TEAM WORK. This was never publicized as a single player game, grow the F up and learn how to work with people instead of whining about losing. I have never see so many cry babies.

Btw, if you don't like conquest mode, don't play it, you do have that option. But I guess its easier to drop on the forums and whine about it, instead of clicking a button and choosing Assault.

Conquest is just Assault, but oh look you have an idea where the enemy is! so much teamwork has been put into finding the enemy when as soon as you see flashing lights on one of the caps you know that something is there. yeah... something about this game mode makes me think someone was smoking something, just not sure what...

oh and conquest seems to pay more.

Edited by KhanCipher, 23 December 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[Draxos Synge]

Conquest and Assault have both degraded into tdm matches, the only difference is in one you have to just grab one point to win. The teams need more balance, collison needs to be added to stop the light mech runaround, and wieght limits per drop is needed to keep the flavor of the month mech at bay.

I like the idea of conquest, but with the WoT mentality of meet in the middle and slug it out that has formed in this community, its a waste of time to try and actually play the mode as intended. As far as respawns go, no, just no. It is considered a drop onto a target planet and unless you have a fleet orbiting above with a long, long, long list of ready to drop reinforcements then you have a limited amount of resources. Which is how Battletech, which this is based upon, has always been. You want respawns go play Mod Warfare whichever.

[Grisnir]

LoboSG, on 23 December 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Adding something like respawns to the game mode would completely destroy any element of tension the game mode currently promotes by removing any sort consequence.

when you die in BF, your team lose tickets, so dieing a lot will hurt your team a lot. In MWLL your team will lose huge amounts of tickets when you die in a expensive Mech like a Daishi

LoboSG, on 23 December 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Respawning also requires strategy/tactics. Typically, in BF where you can spawn on a teammate, people may suicide just to respawn on their teamamte who capping a flag. Thus, when you fight a 'team', you have to make sure you kill every last one. When the last guy is dead, you have to respawn from a faraway point, where you have to spend time to leg it to the flag. Time when the tickets is counting down. Hardly no 'consequence'.

the fun is, with respawn you can and must adapt your tactic to the enemys, battles far more dynamic and fluid

[xRaeder]

PANZERBUNNY, on 23 December 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Think of Conquest as Deathmatch and it's better.

Doesn't that kinda reflect badly on PGI's competence though?

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

It would have been a great mode if the maps were at least 2x as large as these and perhaps with 12vs12 as well. But with small maps that you can travel from 1 side to the other in <1min, it's still just a zergfest. Who cares about caps? Just wipe them out and auto-win or cap after they're all blown away. Teams typically don't care about bases except to go there to fight, and this is clearly a problem and contradicts the entire point of having bases or objective based multiplayers. Players should be encouraged to spread out to get more caps and defend them, hence the entire point of a mode like this. But since it's just one big flop instead, they just zerg in a blob no different before, easily wipe you out with superior numbers, then cap after wards if the game didn't immediately end from a wipe. A mode that is suppose to encourage spreading out and defending does no such thing, and it's mainly the small map sizes to blame for this. These maps all need to get additional work to make them larger. Why stop here? Fix the problem. Build onto them, enlarge them, then spread the bases out more.

The bases also don't have any meaning nor do anything for the team that takes them. They just tick points. That's it. Of all the things they could have done with this in MW, such as helipads for allied NPC air support, hangers to spawn allied NPC tanks, control centers to activate turrets, or maybe unlock a limited use repair bay at one of the bases... of all the things in MW they could have done, they just copy/paste Conquest. It's no different here than it is from any other game that does it. Bases just tick points and nothing else. Yawn. This is MechWarrior. Where is all that other stuff? Don't just make a boxing arena and dress it up, make battlefields with tons of stuff in them. Where are the vehicles? The turrets? ANYTHING? I know what I'm saying takes a lot of work, but if bases actually did things and this game had NPC/turrets in it, it would be 100x more fun/exciting.

Edited by Bluten, 23 December 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[xRaeder]

^^ You can't legitimately call it Conquest without respawns.

[Shismar]

Conquest is just team death match, that is inevitable from the way the mode is designed right now.

Respawn is not the answer though, it simply does not fit the spirit of Battletech. This does not mean, that there may not ever be game modes with a respawn, Solaris arena style game modes sure could use it and the dropship mode seems to find a solution as well.

Conquest though requires faster point acquisition and a massive incentive to win by conquest. The incentive is required for assault as well because even if capping still is a valid tactical variation, most games are TDM as well.

Reintroducing a tuned R&R system would go some way to increase tactical gameplay. Removing features rarely makes games better. It certainly did not in this case.

[xRaeder]

Shismar, on 23 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Conquest is just team death match, that is inevitable from the way the mode is designed right now.

Respawn is not the answer though, it simply does not fit the spirit of Battletech. This does not mean, that there may not ever be game modes with a respawn, Solaris arena style game modes sure could use it and the dropship mode seems to find a solution as well.

Conquest though requires faster point acquisition and a massive incentive to win by conquest. The incentive is required for assault as well because even if capping still is a valid tactical variation, most games are TDM as well.

Reintroducing a tuned R&R system would go some way to increase tactical gameplay. Removing features rarely makes games better. It certainly did not in this case.

Right... so that's why TT had a reinforcement rule. Your argument is invalid. Try again.

[The Cheese]

Dropship mode, people. Announced a long time ago.

Respawns are coming, like it or not.

[Harmatia]

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. However I don't think the assault mode plays much like other games I have played. When I see "Assault" in the map/mode description, I'm thinking more like Rush, where one team has objectives to defend and the other is the aggressor. Assault in MWO makes little sense to me. In addition, I would love to see a variation of conquest that allows for each players to have X number of mechs to bolster the effort. The only thing missing from the current variant is a longer more epic feel.

[Stunner]

Conquest mode is actually a refreshing change from Assualt. I've been in a few games where the enemy has wiped out most of our team but we had 4 base caps and died fighting over the 5th. The enemy had mostly slow mechs so they were unable to get to the cap points and convert them in time. i've been in others where we only had 20-30 more points to win and the enemy found our last mech and killed him. It can go either way. Killing the enemy mechs in Conquest isn't worth that much you have to get the points to earn money in Conquest. Even with a lot of points racked up it still seems like the payout is too low. They need to look at this to encourage more point capture. What is probably happening is folks are wanting to end the matches faster so they wipe out the enemy team. Right now there isn't much xp for in Conquest other than fighting so it really encourages more fighting than capturing of points.