Conquest Mode Review

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

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Luzertof » Fri 2 Aug 2013 03:34

Conquest mode is too fast and all about rush. That helps NATO with cheaper rush units as well as F-117 that seem to be the most valuable unit in the game now, because due to the rush PACT must operate without a decent anti-air umbrella.

In TD if enemies used massive amounts of F-117 you could just pull back a bit and hide your units under your SAMs. In conquest mode retreating a bit is a direct loss due to the extremely high speed points are granted and the very low number of total points available in settings.


For me it's no fun as PACT and I don't see any sense in rushing without strategies or playing F-117 only, so I will avoid the game mode. I really hoped it's just TD with the need to push at some point after the game has established a bit, but we got from total turtle to total rush. Both sucks.

tarasbulba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri 26 Apr 2013 20:07
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby tarasbulba » Fri 2 Aug 2013 03:36

solaris wrote:
tarasbulba wrote:I am not looking for an indicator of how good a player is, just how experienced he is. (i.e. how many complete games he/she has under their belt).


If you'd rather play with someone who's perfected a helo spam than someone who has yet to learn any habits, good or bad, I suppose there's not much I can do but say "I disagree with your opinion."

Cheers.


I would rather play with someone who knows what the CV is used for, and how to use Flares. Or I would rather have a choice, and not have it make for me by Eugen.

No point in arguing however, we just have different preferences.

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

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby solaris » Fri 2 Aug 2013 03:37

Random idea, possibly a broken lightbulb.

What would be the outcome of giving the team their deficit of victory points as income that don't count for VP?

For example, team A holds +18 total income, team B holds +15 total income. Since team A is generating 3 VP a tick, team B gets an additional 3 income. Or perhaps a 1.5 multiplying factor? The intent of the idea is to give attackers the income advantage to help negate the defender's advantage.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

naizarak
Captain
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue 25 Dec 2012 12:53
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby naizarak » Fri 2 Aug 2013 03:44

So basically keep income equal at all times for both teams. That along with increasing the victory point limit are probably the best ways of fixing conquest.

User avatar
Dux
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 18:16
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Dux » Fri 2 Aug 2013 04:04

naizarak wrote:
solaris wrote:Random idea, possibly a broken lightbulb.

What would be the outcome of giving the team their deficit of victory points as income that don't count for VP?

For example, team A holds +18 total income, team B holds +15 total income. Since team A is generating 3 VP a tick, team B gets an additional 3 income. Or perhaps a 1.5 multiplying factor? The intent of the idea is to give attackers the income advantage to help negate the defender's advantage.


So basically keep income equal at all times for both teams. That along with increasing the victory point limit are probably the best ways of fixing conquest.


+1.

But if the game is to have such fast paced, the losing team should have a bonus for points, so that unsuccessful attacks and counter attacks be less harmful.
---------------
Image

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

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby zbone » Fri 2 Aug 2013 04:41

Funny thing is all this was predicted after the very first information on the new mode came out. Marshalls told us "reserve your judgements until you play it, you silly whiners" and yet it's indeed one-rush favoring NATO game mode with little means for rush loser to get back in it. I am not even surprised, in fact.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Random » Fri 2 Aug 2013 04:42

solaris wrote:Random idea, possibly a broken lightbulb.

What would be the outcome of giving the team their deficit of victory points as income that don't count for VP?

For example, team A holds +18 total income, team B holds +15 total income. Since team A is generating 3 VP a tick, team B gets an additional 3 income. Or perhaps a 1.5 multiplying factor? The intent of the idea is to give attackers the income advantage to help negate the defender's advantage.


this!
I brought something along this lines up before too.;)
Random idea©

Random wrote:
praslovan wrote:As soon as someone gains advantage over stalemate he is no longer an attacker but a defender. And a very well off and buffed defender at that. You could pretty much call it God mode.



this is would be a big problem. Basically as soon as someone gets more income (and all the sectors are taken by one of the two teams) the ones with more income could only defend (and probably should if they want to win).
So one team now has more income and gets free victorypoints.
This would often lead to games where the outcome is already decided after 10 min.(after the first landgrabbing/dividing of the map)

another idea: what about sectors which give income to the enemy, but victorypoints to the ones holding the sector?
Last edited by Random on Fri 2 Aug 2013 04:47, edited 1 time in total.

naizarak
Captain
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue 25 Dec 2012 12:53
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby naizarak » Fri 2 Aug 2013 04:45

zbone wrote:Funny thing is all this was predicted after the very first information on the new mode came out. Marshalls told us "reserve your judgements until you play it, you silly whiners" and yet it's indeed one-rush favoring NATO game mode with little means for rush loser to get back in it. I am not even surprised, in fact.


this.

This exactly situation was predicted weeks ago when conquest was first outlined. Really makes you question the marshals' roles if they can't anticipate and fix basic problems before release.

Wargamer8
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu 25 Jul 2013 00:58

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby Wargamer8 » Fri 2 Aug 2013 05:15

Going to copy and paste a post I said earlier.

"Ohh my almost forgot about the most look forward thing in this DLC. CONQUEST! I think it's terrible, just flat out terrible. You most of the time have no way of coming back from losing a couple of the sectors, and after the enemy has the point lead it becomes a boring ass match where no-one attacks at all, because due to the reinforcement spawns being so close, you can keep defending and keep chucking units into the sector. Played only 1 match today and it wasn't fun at all, and I'm not that surprised. I knew from the start conquest was going to suck because you can never make a camper get off his ass. You can never make a noob not spawn high quality units. Another thing about conquest is you must own most of the sectors in order to get any points. If you own 4 and your opponent owns 5, you gain no points but they get +5 points per second which is kinda dumb and means you can never comeback after losing a sector and the enemy put up extreme defenses."
Image

MK.82
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun 28 Apr 2013 16:31
Contact:

Re: Conquest Mode Review

Postby MK.82 » Fri 2 Aug 2013 06:23

Game has a broken point income. Nothing else fix it (all game modes) than cutting income half or even more.

Conquest could get more interesting by separating income points and victory points.
Make income points fixed trough whole game like 10 pts. And then every victory zone subtracts points from that income flow.

More victory points you want, more sacrifices you need to do for your income.

Control most of the map and your income can be low as 2 pts. Control none and you have 10 pts.
Think wisely where to go and with what.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests