59 replies to this topic

[Codejack]

It's just boring as mud.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Mud is not boring. There's all sorts of things you can do with it. Conquest mode, on the other hand...

[RightHook]

Won 5 conquest games yesterday, and actually won 2 by capture. The funny part, both of those seemed to be against 4 man premades. While we dropped with all lights, mediums and one dragon. the opponents had 4 atlas. one was river city one was caustic valley, in both games the premades went for theta, and stood there waiting for a fight while we ran around them out of shot range. When they figured out we were not comming to fight they started to chase us as a well disaplined group. And they basically couldn't catch us. Well an AC20 did catch the back of my head in one game, but there is a justification for the current system. It's possible to beat a premade with a bunch of puggers when we all run like rabbits. Just make sure you don't have the slowest mech.
But even then the rewards were far less then if we would have just armored up and bashed with them.

Still thinking we need something to make it more profitable to cap then kill in this mode, and something that requires more tactics then one mech running around the edges of the map capturing one base after another. Like filling the mother ship, only loading your mechs weight in resources, ect... Also to expand on the some bases working, some not, idea, you could add a module that would powerup a non working mine, or powerdown a working one and one that would signal which mines are working from range for teammates, as part of the Information warfare role. Just thinking of things that would make it so we could use the mech lab to build mechs designed for this particular mode of play. Perhaps we could fill empty mech slots with cargo space modules that would boost our hauling capacity. Then premades would know who their haulers are and protect them. While we puggers would likely just watch them get shot to pieces and .

Edited by RightHook, 11 January 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[shotokan5]

To me I think that more points should be added for capture and recapture. The biggest change in game play is that people are begining to understand the concept of conquest more and that it is not assault. My best example is a conquest game where near the end we were behind by over 220 points. We had more mech but had to cap to really do anything. We did and ended up winning by over 200. Many conquest matches are hard fought and the number go back and forth. Many times its more important to really understand what the purpose of conquest is before we whine about it. is it perfect no, but it is moving in the right direction because of the players not the developers.

[Caboose30]

Has anyone noticed that Conquest is basically Assault, but spread over more bases? There really is no incentive for people to go for a cap win, and most of them don't. The last thirty games or so that I've played the only way we managed to cap was by coincidence. I was thinking a way to get people to actually try some strategy would be to up the cap win XP bonus to 150, reduce the kill xp bonus, and make the cbill win bonus $50k. Any thoughts?

[Dexxtaa]

I like it the way it is. It's less popular because you receive maybe 20k less income than Assault, but I like the different combat play and increased potential for tactics to be utilized.

Also, the in-your-face brawling is a hoot for me, watching two teams duke it out over a single point is quite the sight.

As is, conquest is still about killing the other team, but with the recent increase in ticket counter per second, capturing bases DOES - in fact - produce a certain degree of stress when one team captures 4 out of 5 points, so the cap speed allows point control to play a role in the game mode.

[Private Prinny]

Not necessarily.
I played several games were Scouts went capping while the big boys did their thing in the middle...assault blob.

After the counter reaches something like 5:6 it wittles down to the big ones chatting suggesting where to cap, where the afk-ers and scouts are.
Also if a teams totally neglect the base cap it will be hurting them when the match drags on.....how many times I was the last one in my team and won against 4 other mechs who spent time searching than capping :-)
Happened to me as well..got overconfident in killing a commando....totally lost track of points in chasing him down and lost 742:750.....when we had a 150 points lead.

Also as I level trough my Raven 2X and 4X (like the chassis not very much because they are so slow compared to 3L) it is mor fun playing them on conquest then on assault....matter to tastes I know.

The Ressource Bonus isn't the main reason to play conquest for me...its the intention to have a non-Blob-in-the-middle-experience once in a while...so I do not see the need for more incentive (give it too much and assault-mode will die out and then everyone complains about more incentives for assault :-)

[John MatriX82]

I made a suggestion in the suggestion forum:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1716243

Add respawns, captured bases only allow respawns (by orbital drop), 200 ton per-player limit. Not an easy task but that would totally make the mode worth playing.

As it is now, I totally ignore it, you still earn far lower than assault, matches last longer and it's assault camouflaged with further bases.

[Caboose30]

John MatriX82, on 13 January 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

I made a suggestion in the suggestion forum:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1716243

Add respawns, captured bases only allow respawns (by orbital drop), 200 ton per-player limit. Not an easy task but that would totally make the mode worth playing.

As it is now, I totally ignore it, you still earn far lower than assault, matches last longer and it's assault camouflaged with further bases.

Your link doesn't work. I disagree with respawns because it takes a ton of strategy out of it. If you don't have to worry about dying, you can alpha till you blow up, respawn, and do it again. Cheese builds will be even worse because they'll scrap heat sinks in favor of weapons.

Private Prinny, on 13 January 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

Not necessarily.
I played several games were Scouts went capping while the big boys did their thing in the middle...assault blob.

After the counter reaches something like 5:6 it wittles down to the big ones chatting suggesting where to cap, where the afk-ers and scouts are.
Also if a teams totally neglect the base cap it will be hurting them when the match drags on.....how many times I was the last one in my team and won against 4 other mechs who spent time searching than capping :-)
Happened to me as well..got overconfident in killing a commando....totally lost track of points in chasing him down and lost 742:750.....when we had a 150 points lead.

Also as I level trough my Raven 2X and 4X (like the chassis not very much because they are so slow compared to 3L) it is mor fun playing them on conquest then on assault....matter to tastes I know.

The Ressource Bonus isn't the main reason to play conquest for me...its the intention to have a non-Blob-in-the-middle-experience once in a while...so I do not see the need for more incentive (give it too much and assault-mode will die out and then everyone complains about more incentives for assault :-)

Yes, I've played in more than one match like that as well, and it's awesome. But the problem as I see it is that maybe 25% of matches are like that, the rest are just your usual slugfest.

[John MatriX82]

JuiceCaboose, on 13 January 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Your link doesn't work. I disagree with respawns because it takes a ton of strategy out of it. If you don't have to worry about dying, you can alpha till you blow up, respawn, and do it again. Cheese builds will be even worse because they'll scrap heat sinks in favor of weapons.

Uhm strange if I click it works let's try like this: http://mwomercs.com/...43#entry1716243

As far as it is now conquest is useless. To make base capping useful, I see two ways: either add respawns, you can chose where to respawn via orbital drop if your team holds more than 1 base (fully captured) or add 1 or more repair mechbays near the capture points or 1 per team near their first spawn location.. By holding the point the mechbay works, so that you can repair your mech inside it (and thus no more respawns)

[Caboose30]

The holding point is a good idea. And only one mech gets repaired inside the point at a time, or the more mechs being repaired, each one goes progressively slower. I just don't plain like the respawn idea, I feel that it'll turn this into CoD way too fast. And yeah, your link works now. Don't know why I couldn't get it to go last night, it just kept giving me a database error.

[pesco]

It is my opinion that the "Assault" game mode should be scrapped. The only case in which its lack of meaningful capping mechanics could be desirable is in a tournament-like settings where two teams want to fight to the death instead of playing a game that has tactical objectives.

[Asmosis]

In your opinion.

Some people dont like chasing a light mech endlessly in their heavy/assult class for 15 minutes in conquest because the other team took out your lights and their last one is a good pilot.

Had a match where last two mechs were me (stalker srm6 variant) vs a commando. 8 MINUTES LATER the game ended at the 15:00 mark, i forget who "won".

The capture the base part of assult might be defunct, but its good to have a strictly team deathmatch mode. not saying its perfect, but its a viable alternative

[Stormwolf]

I'd scrap both conquest and assault and have actual missions that are relevant to the BT setting.

[twibs]

Oddly last patch many were saying the exact same thing about the Conquest.

There are many matches where the end result is clear at 5 min mark, only difference is that in assault the mop up hardly lasts more than few mins where as Conquest can still take the full 15 min.

Pick your poison, but let us pick too.

[Rippthrough]

Conquest is assault but with some dumb mechs running off to a corner and letting their team die.

[Gogopher]

disagree...both mods are useful and fun...neither should be privileged over the other

[Purplefluffybunny]

Stormwolf, on 14 January 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

I'd scrap both conquest and assault and have actual missions that are relevant to the BT setting.

I kind of agree. We should have escort missions, assassination missions, meaningful capture type missions where we assault actual fortified positions or other strategic and tactical map features rather than generic mining platforms etc. We should also have rolling engagements over several maps where the outcome of the first battle effects the conditions of the second and so on.

We love to see it but don't expect it as this dev team has made the decision to be minimalist on the content front.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 14 January 2013 - 04:48 AM.

[Inertiaman]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I kind of agree. We should have escort missions, assassination missions, meaningful capture type missions where we assault actual fortified positions or other strategic and tactical map features rather than generic mining platforms etc. We should also have rolling engagements over several maps where the outcome of the first battle effects the conditions of the second and so on.

Mann vs Machine handles that sort of setup nicely. Even though it's just map after map you feel very involved as a group by the 2nd or 3rd one.

[Small Baguette]

pesco, on 13 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

It is my opinion that the "Assault" game mode should be scrapped. The only case in which its lack of meaningful capping mechanics could be desirable is in a tournament-like settings where two teams want to fight to the death instead of playing a game that has tactical objectives.

They gave us the option to choose the game mode you're about to play for a reason, enjoy it.