81 replies to this topic

[xRaeder]

Butane9000, on 14 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

People have stopped playing conquest until they fix it. At the moment it's just assault with more points and less rewards.

Funny thing is... I called this the day it was released. No one listened or cared.

[WarHippy]

thalamus, on 14 January 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I never play conquest except if I forgot to select Assault matches and I know that a few other players do the same. In every game of conquest I played, it was never clear whether we were supposed to cap, or hunt the other 'Mechs down. I never witnessed a match ending via capping resources. At this point, without a respawn mechanic that enables teams to devise and evolve strategies over time, conquest appears to be little more than 'Confusing Team Deathmatch' as opposed to the regular deathmatch that is assault.

Might get better though.

Respawn isn't needed. What they need to do is have the winner be whoever has the most capture points at the end of the timer, or whoever has the most capture points when the last mech on a team dies. This would make for interesting games where an over zealous pilot takes out the last enemy mech but his team still loses because they had not aquired more capture points than the other team. Doing it like this I would also have capture points being the biggest c-bill generator in conquest mode instead of damage done.

[Joseph Mallan]

xRaeder, on 14 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Funny thing is... I called this the day it was released. No one listened or cared.

Funny thing is I know some players that want to play this mode cause it is more action less cap than assault.

[River Walker]

The way they have it setup just sucks.
Its setup for light Mech Combat and that's what you get most of the time.
What we need is new maps with repair bays and NPC turrets with sensor tower just like Mech Commander if you want to call it Conquest.
Right now its nothing more than Assault with more eye candy on the map and a resin to use Light Mechs to hop back and froth to the futuristic Light Mech Blood chumer.

Edited by River Walker, 14 January 2013 - 10:51 AM.

[Serapth]

When conquest was released I loved the idea, simply because it prevented the 4xECM Raven w/ cap module cheese builds from well, cheesing a win. It didn't happen all that often ( often enough though ), but when it did it really pissed you off.

Then they went and removed RnR, changed the reward system and now capping is a stupid thing to do. In this new world, Conquest is pointless, especially if you pug. Basically its assault, with even worse communication. At least in Assault PUGs, you can follow the blob. Not so much in most Conquest games.

[Serapth]

Thontor, on 14 January 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

You know its only Assault where capping is "a stupid thing to do" because there is no chill reward for it, and lots of cbills for kills/assists

Conquest gives you half the cbills for kills/assists. And potentially 37,500 cbills for winning by capping.

Capping in conquest is most certainly not a stupid thing to do.

I know. What I was saying is, I liked Conquest, because you couldn't get capped, generally making the matches longer/more interesting. I play SOOOOOO many Winter city tunnel rush games, or River City counterclockwise cap races that it was getting pretty annoying.

Conquest got rid of that.

However, the removal of RnR and the cap bonus removed it from Assault too, anyone that caps in Assault mode now is frankly a bit of an *****, meaning the biggest advantage that Conquest had ( to me ), went away.

Then in PUGs, most Conquests were played like Assault anyways, so you basically just played an Assault match with less rewards. Now if they changed conquests mode so it was 100% resource based reward, that would make it more interest. They would have to make a win work about 200-300k cbills though to make it worthwhile for a good player.

Edited by Serapth, 14 January 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Livewyr]

I prefer Conquest.. because you have to think about several aspects, rather than..

Kill enemy and don't get capped.

Assault usually results in
Go to preferred location and Camp until 1-2 mechs lose patience and charge...
OR
Never see the enemy and cap out.. having spent more time waiting for people to load than actually playing...

I've never seen a camping or shot-less game in Conquest mode.

[Dayuhan]

As with all changes MWO the game modes have to be implemented in stages. The Conquest mode is a baby step towards Objective modes - where each team may have different objectives in the game. Because Conquest mode was implemented just before the holiday break it has gone through a lot of testing by the player base and some issues have been discovered. The next step is for PGI to address these issues, with upcoming patches, until the risks and rewards for Conquest are in keeping with their objectives for the game.

Once Conquest mode meets their expectations then another mode will be implemented building on what they learned from Conquest mode and adding another feature.

[Shismar]

I don't know what game you guys are playing. Maybe it is because I am on at EU times but about half of my matches are conquest and many are won or lost by capping.

It seems like some people really do not know the changes from last patch and still play TDM (which it was 100% before). I'd like some exp incentive as well and better incentives to cap in assault mode, but there is already quite some welcome change.

[Serapth]

Shismar, on 14 January 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I don't know what game you guys are playing. Maybe it is because I am on at EU times but about half of my matches are conquest and many are won or lost by capping.

It seems like some people really do not know the changes from last patch and still play TDM (which it was 100% before). I'd like some exp incentive as well and better incentives to cap in assault mode, but there is already quite some welcome change.

Well actually time zone seems to have a big part of it. I noticed a definate change in the game after about 6PM EST, till around midnight. This is when the 8-0 stompings seem to become the norm and conquests rarely end in caps.

During any hours but those, I notice much more balanced games, and yes, capping in Conquest.

I know personally, if im dropping in a slower mech, I turn off Conquest. The most common action is to bumrush the closest resource, so an enterprising light can get behind and streak the living crap out of assault mechs.


FYI, if you are in a 3l, charge the enemies starting point, you will always find at least 1 assault mech that is struggling to catch up to his mates. The other problem with Conquest is positional mechs ( LRM boats, Snipers ) are at a bigger handicap. The whole PGI recommendation of leaving an Assault at a checkpoint to defend while fasters go to cap the next point is just a recipe for slaughter.

Edited by Serapth, 14 January 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Hellen Wheels]

Chuff, on 14 January 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Is this just a coincidence, or have others noticed the same? Have people just gone back to Assault now?

Observer or matchmaking error. I play conquest exclusively (except when I forget to click the choice.)

Almost never fail to find a match ("almost never" being, once if at all during any gaming session.) And no, I don't see the same folks over and over.
=H=

[EvilCow]

The thing went this way for me:

1) I liked MWLL terrain control.
2) Great expectations for MWO conquest.
3) Disappointed by the TDM with more cap points (better do not call those bases) and the same 4 cramped maps.
4) Back to Assault, still TDM but less PUGs running around, go in MWLL for tactical challenges.

[Stoicblitzer]

it's not dead. just not as good as BF3 conq.

[Trauglodyte]

Unfortunately, I see the failure of Conquest turning into Assault brawl mode simply because of the pidly size of the maps. Conquest is better played out on Caustic Valley simply because you can't openly engage the center because of the Caldera.

[Banshee Bullet]

How often do you get an 8 man conquest match? Like never. Unless you're simul-dropping with another 8 that's on conquest.

I don't know why. I vastly prefer conquest to assault. Almost every 8 man assault I play seems to end in a cap with very little fighting. BORING!

4 mans are usually a fight either way, the game mode just changes the location really.

EDIT: btw, failed 3 8 man conquest drops in a row the other day.

Edited by Banshee Bullet, 14 January 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[CypherHalo]

WarHippy, on 14 January 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Respawn isn't needed. What they need to do is have the winner be whoever has the most capture points at the end of the timer, or whoever has the most capture points when the last mech on a team dies. This would make for interesting games where an over zealous pilot takes out the last enemy mech but his team still loses because they had not aquired more capture points than the other team. Doing it like this I would also have capture points being the biggest c-bill generator in conquest mode instead of damage done.

In lieu of respawns that is a great idea. I'm still not a huge fan of Conquest and have a few issues with that idea. 1) It will undoubtedly confuse some people who won't understand why they lost when they killed the enemy team. 2) In general I don't favor trying to influence player behavior through c-bill rewards. It places all the focus on earning c-bills and the focus really should be more on the fighting. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when I'm playing League of Legends or Hawken I take actions because I'm trying to win and I'm enjoying the game. The devs have been smart enough to reward these actions I would naturally take anyway. I don't take an action in those games because they will earn me more rewards at the end. I take actions to help my team and get rewarded for those actions. It's the opposite of how MWO is handling things in Conquest.

If I'm trying to capture points in those games it is because that is what I need to do to win. With MWO though, there's really no reason to capture the points except for rewards and I just don't think this is nearly as compelling. Once again, I think it puts to the focus in a bad place because it highlights just how much of a grind you've got going on and really you should be focused on fighting and having fun. I know that I have lost track of my "credits" in both Hawken and League because I'm just having fun playing the game, so I will sometimes temporarily lose track of how much I have. That is good! I should be playing to have fun, not just amass a big bank account. That's my two cents.

Basically, MWO is reduced to this because they insanely refuse to have any respawns. If I'm a dev, I can use respawns to "force" you to play the way I want. Do I want to create a game mode where to win you have to capture the flag? Well, that is your only win condition, doesn't matter how many times you kill the enemy team. Do I want to do some kind of ticket based game, hold X points to run out the enemy tickets? Alright then, that is your win condition! It works better, well in my opinion at least, then fiddling around with c-bill rewards and the rates of resource generation that PGI is forced to resort to.

[Henchman 24]

Cap awards should be cumulative, regardless of outcome(XP wise at least).

I've wasted far too much time in this mode earning caps vs. the enemy, only to have a clueless team die off too soon, and have all I did mean nothing. It would be the same for any pilot obviously, but the point is, the enemy in this case did nothing but cap two points, then send their ECM lights(4 of them) to go help tag and pick my team apart. Capping was not their goal, as killing still guarantees a lions-share reward for a mode that should be more complicated in how it tallies.

Had we won, I would have had tons of cap bonuses, but I got next to nothing for the loss being the only one left to fend off 3 or 4.

Suicides still earn more than this.

Cap rewards should stick regardless of win/loss as they represent the pilot's ability to get to the points and hold them, which is the goal of the mode. I still think the winning team should win, but if they aren't fighting for the points to cap, and just brawling, they should walk away with far less than even capping 3 points for a loss. If the want people to play a mode that's different than deathmatch with a cap point, rewards for deathmatch need to be nullified for that mode. It's the only way to properly test to even see if the mode is worth spending time on.

And so far, it isn't.

Edited by Henchman 24, 14 January 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[Neklatan]

thalamus, on 14 January 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I never play conquest except if I forgot to select Assault matches and I know that a few other players do the same. In every game of conquest I played, it was never clear whether we were supposed to cap, or hunt the other 'Mechs down. I never witnessed a match ending via capping resources. At this point, without a respawn mechanic that enables teams to devise and evolve strategies over time, conquest appears to be little more than 'Confusing Team Deathmatch' as opposed to the regular deathmatch that is assault.

Might get better though.

Confusing team deathmatch! Awesome! It basically sums it up lmao

Should be about caps, but the team that goes that way spreads thin. If the opposing team sticks together, they can easily kill them one by one and win the match. Someone said anything about capture points? They are mythological or something on that game.

[Neklatan]

Thontor, on 14 January 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

@Henchman 24

Conquest cap rewards (50 cbills per resource) are given whether you win or lose





Not so much anymore. Since the patch I've seen quite a few conquest games where what you described happened.. Except the team that spread out had capped 4 or 5 nodes, and the team sticking together and getting the kills chasing down the spread out team lost because they couldn't get the last guy or recapture enough nodes in time.

I played a bit after the patch, and it was basically the same I'd seen prior to it. I can see what you mentioned happening, but only on specific circunstances (one team comprised of noobs, the team that went for caps had a significant number of ecm lights while the other one hadn't, something like that). In general, when evenly matched teams face on that game mode, the one that goes for cap should lose.

That actually made me quite a bit sad, the right tactics is the wrong one. Perhaps things are better and I can't see, and that process will keep going and it will eventually be great, but imo Conquest can't happen without respawns.

[kragmoor]

I played on any for a few hours, half my games were conquest. your anecdotal evidence does not prove jack.