Conquest Mode Review

triggerhurt
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 12:19
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby triggerhurt » Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:12

One cannot blame eugen systems for not implementing 90% of all the suggestions made here because IMO 90% of the suggestions here are crap. I'm seeing the same mistakes again and again:

- It's a game so realism is less important than balance (YES no exceptions for the beloved MURICA) You're playing a game where the F-111 flies lower than a Cessna. You want to argue about realism?
- Realism is not a valid argument for balancing discussions period. I don't give a if you designed the armor in the factory yesterday yourself and it's the best in the MURICA.
- As a normal/hardcore gamer you have NO idea how to balance at all (how should you?) Get used to that. You don't tell rocket scientists how they should do their job, do you?
- You, YOU have no idea how to create a working game because you are not a game developer and if you are one you should mind your own business.
- I am not here for long but I am already sick and tired of all that buffing and nerfing of 2 points. Seriously? Two points? If you think 2 points more AP/... make the game more balanced go play sth. else because you are obviously not able to cope with difficult situations. But please continue to cry in the forums because your beloved tank/plane/pony/barbie doll is crap because of 2 points missing in the stats! And you didn't loose because of this 2 points, you lost because you (or one of your mates) played like in that particular game. Simple as that.
- And If you're under the age of 18 please do me a favour and don't even think about posting sth. here because you sure as hell gonna waste everyone 's time. When you're 27 or so you will think just the same way. If you disagree on every other point, trust me on this one.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

zbone
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu 13 Jun 2013 05:31
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby zbone » Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:19

Tommoscimmia wrote:For what you say raven, well if the community agrees on something you should beware, because the community is the main problem of this game (i could invite you once again to read my original post)
If you want a less static gameplay, well conquest is the answer. Let's fix the little problems, make it as better as we can with our feedback (i still hope that all players' feedback doesnt count the same) and here we go!

The main flaw of this community is 80% (I am pulling this stat from my arse) of it are not part of an organised team and they prefer random pick-up games over organised team battles with team speak. I trust your expertise when you say all possible rushes are counterable with your level of skill and team organisation. It's not the case for 80% of the player mass and for them this game mode is broken.
Not much to discuss, really.

triggerhurt
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 12:19
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby triggerhurt » Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:25

zbone wrote:
Tommoscimmia wrote:I trust your expertise when you say all possible rushes are counterable with your level of skill and team organisation. It's not the case for 80% of the player mass and for them this game mode is broken.
Not much to discuss, really.


It really isn't. An organized team is always in a better position. If you don't have one it's not the game's (modes) fault. There's nothing broken at all.

zbone
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu 13 Jun 2013 05:31
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby zbone » Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:29

triggerhurt wrote:It really isn't. An organized team is always in a better position. If you don't have one it's not the game's (modes) fault. There's nothing broken at all.

You missed my point. In Destruction at least an unorganized team can win easily against an unorganized rush. In Conquest unorganized rush wins over unorganized answer thus we have battle of two rushes and who wins wins. Timmo says rush is not the answer for organized Conquest. Good on them, majority of players are unorganized. For them this mode is useless.

triggerhurt
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 12:19
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby triggerhurt » Mon 12 Aug 2013 00:37

Rush as I understand it is nothing more than a fast attack move. Either you can cope with that or you cannot. If you need help but you don't get any while the enemies help each other I don't see the problem. Either one has capable mates and you win (or it'll be at least a good fight) or one has stupid 13y olds and you loose for sure just like in any other game mode. :|

User avatar
Bubble slip
Master Sergeant
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed 22 Aug 2012 11:00
Location: Toulouse
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Bubble slip » Mon 12 Aug 2013 10:07

I didn't read all of the previous posts, and excuse me for that but i would like to give my point of view about Conquest mode, and i think some BPT mates share it. And i know that Niwo share it.

Thanks EUGEN for this mode, this is a real good alternative to Destruction mode which is so ... heu... frustrating.

I like this mode because we can attack, prepare team strategy, reverse lost situations, have fun.

But... single default appears already: The maps are not adapted to this mode. Some maps obliges us to rush at the start of the game. If you win the strategics sectors you win the match.

For exemple, on "Kristiansund" if you take the two advanced spawns, you win, it's inevitable. If you take one of the advanced spawns and contest the second, you win. The center sector is needless and the 4 points adverse sectors are too far to attack. What do you think the players 'll do ? Rush this sectors i guess.. ^^

So, i think this mode would be "perfect" if the maps were adapted. No advanceed spawns with a lot of points at the same distance of the initial spawns, a little bit more points at the center of the map and some smaller sectors ...etc..


For example, Stavanger is a map which is more adapted for the Conquest i think.

Nevertheless, thanks for the job and this DLC, and i hope COnquest 'll be THE mode.

Tommoscimmia
First Sergeant
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed 10 Oct 2012 17:26
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Tommoscimmia » Mon 12 Aug 2013 15:40

Triggerhurst, your answer is outside of any logic.

We are not talking of all the topic, but only from my post on page 14 and so on.

I think is better for all to clarify: when we all talk of map redesign, and it is my opinion as I think it is of all the others, we talk about ZONES and AMOUNT OF POINTS.

There's no big change in the maps, just change the amount of points or add 1 zone or remove a spawn.

That is what everybody here means with map design.
Solty wrote:Have you ever played ALB btw?

wins32767
Corporal
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 20:37
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby wins32767 » Mon 12 Aug 2013 17:13

I think Conquest is by far the best game mode. Yesterday I had what was easily the most fun match I've ever played against a couple PLF guys and Buck that was seesaw for the vast majority of it. There was active fighting the entire game and aggressive pushes on both flanks.

I think the only reason we won is that they ran out of good units. Still, we were down ~400:120 about 2/3rds the way through the game and it was only by the skin of our teeth and a crazy SAM umbrella that we pulled out a win. We even ended with a slighly negative K:D ratio at the end.

I agree with whoever said that it really comes down to the level of skill on both sides. If you have good, on the ball players that have situational awareness and help each other out the mode is an absolute delight.

Tommoscimmia
First Sergeant
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed 10 Oct 2012 17:26
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Tommoscimmia » Mon 12 Aug 2013 22:35

Grosnours wrote:The point is quite simple : maps might change a little bit (zone redesigned here and there, total victory points needed modified, some spawn points removed, this kind of things) but I really doubt there will be a big change in either the physical layout of the map or a more drastic distribution of the zones.
I do say that because both have already been proposed by mashals and rejected by Eugen.

So what you are saying about maps not being optimum and needing to be improved is doable yes, but only in a limited fashion. You have to realize that a huge amount of maps were produced for conquest and all of them couldn't be fully tested, especially those with a high number of players. So Eugen will be open to change victory points requirement if a consensus arises among the community. If you fell like it, I strongly encourage you to create a thread where the ideal settings are discussed for each map.


Tommoscimmia wrote:Well maybe i was not clear enough but i thought to have put the question in a quite simple way: the problem with SOME conquest maps, bigger ones are a special case, is a poor map design. I'm not saying that the map is done in a bad or unbalanced way, i'm saying that for conquest the layout of zones and the amount of points is often broken, or it works bad:

"Map designed for conquest are actually really good at giving good battle experience. Low points in the middle map, higher in the flanks or in the rear. That's how it should be', and this way having more ground doesnt mean to have a much greater income than the enemy. Also, in a balanced match, it means that the income grows really slow. In bigger maps the higher income of zones is balanced with a higher point cap to reach"

Here's what i said in one post about lillehammer: if you notice there's no allusion to phisical layout or changing completely the zone layout.
"Fixing the income for the sides to 1 and giving to that (ipotetic) middle zone an income of 1 would put the counter, if enemy's holds both spawns, to 1. More time, less income difference, just different map design. You then have the time and resources to try to counterattack."

That's why i couldnt understand your point: no-one ever wanted or asked for a new map re-creation, just a balance of it's zone with the adding of, if it's the case, a new zone.


This is an Exchange me and grosnours had while talking about this game mode and hiw to make it better. We both agree it is important seen that many people it seems didn't understand what I was meaning with map design issues.

With a work on zones, points and spawns, conquest could fit at 100% with the maps and the game experience could be much more rewarding for everyone
Solty wrote:Have you ever played ALB btw?

pdanders
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed 31 Jul 2013 20:48
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby pdanders » Tue 13 Aug 2013 01:34

Jereth wrote:
Wargamer8 wrote: Wrong you are. Destructions objective is to capture the most sectors to gain income to beat the opposing team.
Capturing sectors will always help you win, but in Destruction, it's secondary to killing the enemy to get destruction points and preserving your force to deny the enemy from getting points.

Wargamer8 wrote:The way to Balance it out would be to give the player with the most sectors less income and the player with the least sectors more income.
Just think about that for a minute.

Hypothetically, if I am the player who plays aggressively and would have the most sectors in your scenario, all I have to do is not buy CV's. Thanks for saving me the points, now I can buy more combat units to sweep aside your remaining forces. That suggestion wouldn't help the defender make some sort of glorious come back at all...

Honestly think about it... :roll:


That's a great point. I do think having a constant income for both teams would be interesting

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests