10 replies to this topic

[Silentium]

Where have you been all my life? I did not like this mode at first, but I played some in this mode this morning and had a blast. Assault has gotten stale for me, and conquest has made MWO fresh again, at least for this player anyway.

I AM FIGHT!

[Sahoj]

Agree. The superior map-mode.

[Roadbeer]

I'm on the same page, I used to hate conquest, but I find when I'm soloing, I'll set it for conquest and when grouped, we'll set it for Any.

Conquest brings a higher level of game play than "Just run into each other until the one with the most whole bits left wins"

[Mason Grimm]

Gotta say, I agree.

I hated conquest when it first came out, I wanted to slug it out toe to toe with my enemy but now I enjoy it as it adds an element of team play that was lacking before; maybe not so much in pug drops (that is certainly disorganized chaos most times) but in teamspeak coordinated team play? For sure!

[LackofCertainty]

I'm actually the reverse. When conquest first came out, I played it exclusively and told my friends it was the better mode. The more I play, though, the more I find assault mode is the one I go for.

I think part of it for me is that I really like collecting mechs and customizing them, and conquest just doesn't pay out nearly as well as assault does, especially if you play a light. I've had games in Conquest, where I run around capping as a light while my team delays the enemies as long as they can, and we end up winning with like 2-3 people left vs. 6+ on the other team, but then when the payout screen comes, I make less than I do when I lose a game in Assault mode.

[Alex Novian]

LackofCertainty, on 20 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

but then when the payout screen comes, I make less than I do when I lose a game in Assault mode.

PGI a request... as you track stats you could possibly track whom caps what collector and the points they contributed to the total 750 for the match and reward them for it.

I put this in the suggestion forum as well.

http://mwomercs.com/...nquest-rewards/

Edited by Alex Novian, 20 April 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[Kobold]

LackofCertainty, on 20 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

I've had games in Conquest, where I run around capping as a light while my team delays the enemies as long as they can, and we end up winning with like 2-3 people left vs. 6+ on the other team, but then when the payout screen comes, I make less than I do when I lose a game in Assault mode.

Then the problem is with the payouts, not with how the game mode plays.

Right now Conquest is a superior game mode, just because you don't end up with 8 HGNs hiding at their base never moving, trying to snipe you. Try that in Conquest and the enemy team will just cap 3 or 4 points and wait you out.

Conquest more easily rewards a team for bringing a variety of mechs.

[LackofCertainty]

Kobold, on 20 April 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Then the problem is with the payouts, not with how the game mode plays.

Right now Conquest is a superior game mode, just because you don't end up with 8 HGNs hiding at their base never moving, trying to snipe you. Try that in Conquest and the enemy team will just cap 3 or 4 points and wait you out.

Conquest more easily rewards a team for bringing a variety of mechs.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever run into a team of 8 HGNs, nor do I think I ever will, because I've similarly never run into a team of 8 altases or 8 stalkers or 8 ravens or 8 splatcats (or any other FotM/OP build)

While I do like conquest a lot (and would probably play it more if it had rewards on par with Assault) I don't think there's anything wrong with Assault, either. The only real difference is that pushing for the early win in assault forces your team to leave your own base more and more undefended, whereas Conquest focuses you to hold a handful of bases across the map. (more points to hold, but at the same time, you'll often be closer to any given base your team holds, so it's easier to keep several covered) The extra bases in conquest allow for more fluid use of the map, but it also means you risk less by leaving a base unguarded. Assault makes your respective bases precious, so they behave more like a tether on the ankle of your team. I don't know if either of those are better; It's like comparing apples to oranges, I think.

I rather like both modes, and I don't quite understand the undercurrent of snobbery surrounding conquest. Even in this thread there's been dismissive comments about how assault has no strategy beyond bashing into each other until one side's dead, which, considering how similar the two modes are, seems funny to me.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 20 April 2013 - 11:30 AM.

[Merky Merc]

I just wish you got rewards for capping. I manage to pull of a win of 750-749 when all my team is dead and I get less than half what I would get from brawling to the death.

[Vassago Rain]

Mason Grimm, on 20 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Gotta say, I agree.

I hated conquest when it first came out, I wanted to slug it out toe to toe with my enemy but now I enjoy it as it adds an element of team play that was lacking before; maybe not so much in pug drops (that is certainly disorganized chaos most times) but in teamspeak coordinated team play? For sure!

Just admit that you're all salty about the poptarters and warbosses, who only ever play conquest if they forget to change the gamemode from 'any.'

[Silentium]

LackofCertainty, on 20 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Honestly, I don't think I've ever run into a team of 8 HGNs, nor do I think I ever will, because I've similarly never run into a team of 8 altases or 8 stalkers or 8 ravens or 8 splatcats (or any other FotM/OP build)

While I do like conquest a lot (and would probably play it more if it had rewards on par with Assault) I don't think there's anything wrong with Assault, either. The only real difference is that pushing for the early win in assault forces your team to leave your own base more and more undefended, whereas Conquest focuses you to hold a handful of bases across the map. (more points to hold, but at the same time, you'll often be closer to any given base your team holds, so it's easier to keep several covered) The extra bases in conquest allow for more fluid use of the map, but it also means you risk less by leaving a base unguarded. Assault makes your respective bases precious, so they behave more like a tether on the ankle of your team. I don't know if either of those are better; It's like comparing apples to oranges, I think.

I rather like both modes, and I don't quite understand the undercurrent of snobbery surrounding conquest. Even in this thread there's been dismissive comments about how assault has no strategy beyond bashing into each other until one side's dead, which, considering how similar the two modes are, seems funny to me.

Honestly, I have not played eight HGNs either, I think the most I have seen is 5, and usually around 3. No biggie though, I still think that Conquest has more variety; admittedly that might change after the tourney and the HGN levelling crowd finish up.