Conquest Mode Review

Adolith
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat 17 Mar 2012 22:20
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Adolith » Fri 2 Aug 2013 20:09

The only gripe I have with conquest is the "side" reinforcement routes, which make it really easy to instantly react to an attack, giving the defender an unnecessary advantage.

Otherwise I love it!

controlvolume
First Sergeant
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed 3 Aug 2011 10:36
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby controlvolume » Fri 2 Aug 2013 20:28

In this thread people argue that an income disadvantage should not be in an RTS game.

-HP-
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 23:54
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby -HP- » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:22

controlvolume wrote:In this thread people argue that an income disadvantage should not be in an RTS game.


In this post a player who's never played Battlefield's version of Conquest doesn't know what he's missing.

User avatar
Buck Turgidson
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue 20 Mar 2012 12:55
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Buck Turgidson » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:25

-HP- wrote:
controlvolume wrote:In this thread people argue that an income disadvantage should not be in an RTS game.


In this post a player who's never played Battlefield's version of Conquest doesn't know what he's missing.


In this post a player arrogantly presumes the player he quotes hasn't played Battlefield.
ImageImage

User avatar
Drrty-D
Major
Posts: 1949
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:49
Location: Rijeka,Croatia

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Drrty-D » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:27

Its hard to get away from the Sitzkrieg Meta,Conquest is not perfect,nor what we hoped to be,but its a life saving mode for W:AB imo.
Like Tommos said,new era,like when a bear wakes up after his winter sleep :) .
I just hope for a quick change to default mode of Ranked games and maybe 3vs3 Ranked too,since we have 13 maps for 3vs3 and many teams.
Image

controlvolume
First Sergeant
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed 3 Aug 2011 10:36
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby controlvolume » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:33

I think Planetside would be a better completely stupid comparison, HP. That way no side can ever actually lose, they just are slightly disadvantaged for a while before making a comeback!

solaris
Lieutenant
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 06:10
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby solaris » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:34

controlvolume wrote:In this thread people argue that an income disadvantage should not be in an RTS game.


"One side should have all the advantages."
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

-HP-
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 23:54
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby -HP- » Fri 2 Aug 2013 21:39

controlvolume wrote:I think Planetside would be a better completely stupid comparison, HP. That way no side can ever actually lose, they just are slightly disadvantaged for a while before making a comeback!


:lol:

Luzertof
First Sergeant
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed 5 Jun 2013 18:11
Location: Pyongyang, North Korea
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Luzertof » Sat 3 Aug 2013 10:39

Grosnours wrote:Yes,rushes might work now when no one knows any better. With time passing by and general awareness about this mode and how to play it rises, then we'll be able to see what's what.


How about you Marshals stop continuously saying this phrase and start actually to say how it should be done better?

The answer to "NATO has cheap rush possibilities - choppers, vehicles, air units - and PACT mostly has not" can't be "yeah, just understand the game mode better".


So, what exactly will change when "we" know the game mode better? Why should people who have unit advantages on their side stop rushing in Conquest when they haven't done in TD yet since release?

What's your and other Marshals defending this game mode as it is now step by step solution to the extreme rushs? What are you doing against when you play Conquest? Do you rush by yourself, please be honest?



I respect what you do and your effort to make the game better, but things like the one I quoted doesn't help. It's just a stupid "l2p" using more words and don't tell how actually to improve gameplay.

Grosnours
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2091
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Grosnours » Sat 3 Aug 2013 11:09

No, you shouldn't learn to play, you should instead learn to read. :D
This way you would have found that I didn't say what you think I did and answers to your questions have already been written many posts ago.

But let me spell this out crystal clear: it is way too early to assess anything.
Why ?
Because the rush you seem so obsessed about might actually not be a good solution at all, once everybody knows about it. Maybe it's something else, another lame that will arise and stomp everything in sight.
Maybe people like myself did already rush like frantic piglets during the testing phase to see what's what and did conclude that it wasn't such a game breaker if the opponent has some training.
Maybe or maybe not because marshals are all incompetent slackers.

So what should we do ?
Take no time for any kind of thinking and nerf every unit available that can rush just because a few players have a knee-jerk reaction after a few games ? Only to roll back afterwards when it's been noticed it wasn't such a big deal after all ?
Thanks, no thanks.

And you know what ? Maybe you're actually right and something should be done to counter rushes and maybe one faction has the advantage compared to the others. But that's way too early to call that out. We need to see what the meta is going to look like. Is there going to be such a trend as NATO rushing and PACT losing ? I don't know.
And neither do you btw.

See that's also the difference between you and me. I also did a theoretical analyze of the game mode and found it flawed. But I'm still working on enhancing it and I have no certitudes right now. I think it's Goatsie who wrote a very funny post about how it's impossible to assess a game mode that quickly. He was absolutely right. Not only do we need to adapt to the new game mode and find our bearings, but all the other players, our opponents and teammates-to-be need to the same. Because ultimately a game mode is a sum of many different parts: rules, maps, players, units and so on. One might be flawed but it doesn't mean the entire game mode is doomed.
Again I will talk about the precedent of the WEE conquest mode. It took quite some time for it to gather a following. Players (and I count myself in) were a bit prejudiced about it, thinking it was way too easy to lame in it. We were all wrong and our sin was ignorance and lack of time playing it.

Sure, this mode is not the conquest of my dream nor the one I was hoping for. It doesn't mean it's automatically a bad game mode which should be scrapped. I bite the bullet and try to help making it better, but that's going to take time as the guys shaping this mode around right now are you, all the players out there.
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests