Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 18 Oct 2017 06:17

integ3r wrote:It's easy to rationalize and defend destruction because one enjoys it... but clearly a game that is actually about attacking and not camping has the higher skill ceiling and is where you want people to strive to get to, as it is a more dynamic and interesting game rather than the slower paced destruction mode. Rather than give up the "legitimacy" of attributing wins and floating numbers in destruction to skill and genius as opposed to the employment of simple low effort tactics one will instead rationalize it as "well in conquest you can just spam units because losses don't matter!" thus ones ego is protected.


This is the main argument against destruction: "destruction player sucks at the game."
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges ? Destruction is a slower game that require a different skill sets.
If I kill superheavies with ATACMS, it's not because they are camping, or that I have spotted them, but because I can deduce their location. If I snipe CV with SAS, it's because I can identify holes in a recon net that is invisible to me.
Destruction players are not noobs, experienced destruction players are just different, insulting us isn't an argument.

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 18 Oct 2017 06:19

Markenzwieback wrote:
Nerdfish wrote:Your point is that ground control should matter. It will still matter without income.

But you fail to see the point some people have made. No income simply deprives the counters to cheesy starts. Be it fast-move vehicle or tank rushes down major roads or well-executed helicopter rush. Hence why I don't see it as a viable mode to play. If you want less of an opening rush, reduce starting points.


We can test both. We can run games without income and games without starting Req. That is a good idea,
For science !
Last edited by Nerdfish on Wed 18 Oct 2017 07:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8365
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Fade2Gray » Wed 18 Oct 2017 07:16

Nerdfish wrote:
integ3r wrote:It's easy to rationalize and defend destruction because one enjoys it... but clearly a game that is actually about attacking and not camping has the higher skill ceiling and is where you want people to strive to get to, as it is a more dynamic and interesting game rather than the slower paced destruction mode. Rather than give up the "legitimacy" of attributing wins and floating numbers in destruction to skill and genius as opposed to the employment of simple low effort tactics one will instead rationalize it as "well in conquest you can just spam units because losses don't matter!" thus ones ego is protected.


This is the main argument against destruction: "destruction player sucks at the game."
Aren't you comparing apples and oranges ? Destruction is a slower game that require a different skill sets.
If I kill superheavies with ATACMS, it's not because they are camping, or that I have spotted them, but because I can deduce their location. If I snipe CV with SAS, it's because I can identify holes in a recon net that is invisible to me.
Destruction players are not noobs, experienced destruction players are just different, insulting us isn't an argument.

Conquest players are far superior at finding holes than destruction players. Also, because of the aggressive play style of conquest players, they have an easier time creating those holes. Remember, conquest is all about killing/sniping CVs (or at least forcing them out of a lane) as well, more so than in destruction.

When I play destruction, for a good chunk of the game I don't play much more different than I do conquest. I'm hyper aggressive, constantly pushing and harassing and trying to throw my opponent off guard. Because conquest players demand being able to trade better than their opponent in order to win usually, the argument "they require different skills to play" is a fallacy, much like the rest of your points. Destruction simply promotes a higher use of artillery, and a few more kinds of cheese, such as retreating towards the end of the match in order to make sure you keep a lead.

Once again you have little more than fallacies and theorycrafting, and you still have not provided a shred of proof to justify any of your claims. If anything all you have done is continue to demonstrate a flawed understanding of the game and its mechanics.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 18 Oct 2017 10:49

Okay, I got two games, One good and one bad.
The good game:
http://api.wargame.tools/api/rd/replays ... 1298edc721
Me vs. Rasputin. Best game I ever had, love it in some many positive ways.
It came down to the wire. with Rasputin sniping a CV and holding conquest advantage until he got flanked.
The game DOES become less and less static as it went on. units get shuffled around as things died all over the place.
Kudos for Rasputin for putting up the show for a first game of this kind he played.

The Bad game:
http://api.wargame.tools/api/rd/replays ... 127d8c607d
Me vs. some random guy who did not say a word in lobby. I don't think he cared. threw half of his army at me then quit in five minutes.
He could definitely have fought on but he just didn't give a (your choice of curses here).
he would have won if he just swung his remaining units around and moved his CVs to high point sectors.

Just played another. and it's ...
The Ugly game:
http://api.wargame.tools/api/rd/replays ... 89b022bb32
Me vs. Ataka stalled because neither of us brought an artillery, An AS 90 or a Bura would have decided it one way or the other.
I also picked a bad map. It's very difficult to make things happen on it.
Many, Many SAS and SPETZ were killed in the line of duty.

A lot of potentials so far. Except the 5 min game everyone's feedback is they are having a lot of fun. Ataka is going to bring some buddies so we can try it out in a team battle. Onward ! for science !

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Tiera » Wed 18 Oct 2017 13:00

I wanted to post to this thread, but then realized that all relevant and standard viewpoints to this old topic have already been posted here, yet again.

Let's return to the topic of which mode is more demanding when Destruction-exclusive players routinely beat their opponents in both Destruction and Conquest on standard settings, and the opposite is no longer true.

As for changes to the game modes: copy battle phases from SD and turn heloes to Phase B units.
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Markenzwieback » Wed 18 Oct 2017 13:14

Tiera wrote:As for changes to the game modes: copy battle phases from SD and turn heloes to Phase B units.

Not all of them, but most. I agree. Ones like e.g. the Kiowa or Tiger should stay in A to purposely fulfill their duty as armed recon helicopters.
Image

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Nerdfish » Wed 18 Oct 2017 13:52

Tiera wrote:I wanted to post to this thread, but then realized that all relevant and standard viewpoints to this old topic have already been posted here, yet again.

Let's return to the topic of which mode is more demanding when Destruction-exclusive players routinely beat their opponents in both Destruction and Conquest on standard settings, and the opposite is no longer true.

As for changes to the game modes: copy battle phases from SD and turn heloes to Phase B units.


Why is which mode is more demanding relevant to this topic ? We can't discuss how to improve baseball until baseball players defeat rocket scientists routinely in both baseball and rocket science ?

Conquest players do not routinely defeat us, neither. They don't routinely play destruction for them to routinely win at it. I haven't seen any of them in a 10 v 10 game in the last year or so. they can't stand getting wrecked after charging into the enemy team on their own under a rain of 20 rocket batteries like Don Quixote on a windmill tilt. :lol: (The actual reason is probably steel division)

As for changes to the game modes: copy battle phases from SD and turn heloes to Phase B units.

SD is doing so well that we can't wait to turn WG into SD rite ? People still play WG dest, so let's change the formula so nobody plays WG 4! there are things to be learned from SD but building a game around conquest isn't one. Surrender system on the other hand, was great.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Razzmann » Wed 18 Oct 2017 14:58

No thanks, I'd rather not want the game to tell me how I should play.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8365
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Fade2Gray » Wed 18 Oct 2017 15:03

Nerdfish wrote:I haven't seen any of them in a 10 v 10 game in the last year or so.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

they can't stand getting wrecked after charging into the enemy team on their own under a rain of 20 rocket batteries like Don Quixote on a windmill tilt.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This rambling ranting is entertaining to watch, I will say that much. This has to be the best fallacy I've seen yet, "conquest players suck because they don't play 10v10! When they do they GIT SO REKT CUZ DEY SUXORZ!"

I'm so done. :mrgreen: Reminds me of that guy who claimed that everything else but 10v10 was "clown games" now.

Tiera wrote:As for changes to the game modes: copy battle phases from SD and turn heloes to Phase B units.

Eh, I'd rather see CVs be the only units that can actually push the front instead of magically making other units able to shoot better, and helos to Phase B? Eh... nah. I think phases could work in Wargame, but not as it is done in SDN.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: Conquest without income - Best of both worlds

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 18 Oct 2017 17:22

I made a thread about this a couple of years back because I felt that conquest was dying out. I've also talked about making the game less static, and in my view there's no quick fix. Conquest is more like blitz mode - I do feel that it overemphasises openings and in my experience the majority of matches in RD have been short, ten minutes is an exaggeration but it's still a problem.

The rules have changed quite a few times so it's really not comparable with destruction, old conquest was just as drawn out and random with those 'victory sectors' dotted around the map.. I think we got a good mix in ALB, siege just wasn't scaled for maps like Ragnarok and Asgard. A no income mode on new maps would probably appeal to those players who frequent tactical servers and so on. Some of the comments about attacking being difficult in RD apply more to map design, but I don't want to dig up old wounds.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests