why don't YOU play conquest.

[praslovan]

Ranked destruction:

Spoiler : :

What are they fighting over in Syria? Parts of Syria... omg sector control.

Tell me how in real world an army being overrun in certain area wouldn't retreat.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

It's not like I was trying to say destruction was superior to conquest, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to take that unduly personally is humorous, I was simply pointing out that conquest is no more realistic than destruction.

What are they fighting over in Syria? Parts of Syria... omg sector control.

Tell me how in real world an army being overrun in certain area wouldn't retreat.

Ignoring the fact that civil wars and guerrilla wars are considerably different than the conventional warfare portrayed in this game, yes, an army being overrun in a certain area would indeed retreat. An army that's holding an arbitrarily lower portion of the areas in a region would not, however, give up and leave once the opposing force had held their majority for X number of minutes.

[Uncle_Joe]

It's not like I was trying to say conquest was superior to destruction, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to take that unduly personally is humorous, I was simply pointing out that conquest is no more realistic than destruction.

Realistic or not, Conquest is a lot more fun due to the attacks and counter-attacks it encourages. Victory revolves around controlling the map, not eeking out kill points by hiding and sniping with arty/air/ATGMs.

Neither mode might be 'realistic' but Conquest is far better at encouraging the type(s) of gameplay that I think most people prefer to see.

[katt]

Destruction should be removed from WRD.

These kind of statements strike me as absolutely idiotic.

Conquest in a nutshell (just replace the Rome references):

Spoiler : :

Maybe you should counter-attack. o:

[Vermillion_Hawk]

It's not like I was trying to say conquest was superior to destruction, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to take that unduly personally is humorous, I was simply pointing out that conquest is no more realistic than destruction.

Realistic or not, Conquest is a lot more fun due to the attacks and counter-attacks it encourages. Victory revolves around controlling the map, not eeking out kill points by hiding and sniping with arty/air/ATGMs.

Neither mode might be 'realistic' but Conquest is far better at encouraging the type(s) of gameplay that I think most people prefer to see.

Well thank you for telling me what I and the other players of this game find fun, I've instantly stopped disliking conquest because you just told me that I should be having fun with it. Thank you. As for the types of gameplay most people prefer to see, I encourage you to find that out for yourself by looking at the multiplayer lobby right now. Unless, of course, these people don't know what's good for them and they need to be shown the righteous path of Conquest?

Maybe you should counter-attack. o:

You don't get it.

[M3SS3NG3R]

An army that's holding an arbitrarily lower portion of the areas in a region would not, however, give up and leave once the opposing force had held their majority for X number of minutes.

What's stopping you from setting a high point & time limit? My last conquest game ended when one side gave up after literally losing 90% of their units in their decks in waves of attacks & counter attacks.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

What's stopping you from setting a high point & time limit? My last conquest game ended when one side gave up after literally losing 90% of their units in their decks in waves of attacks & counter attacks.

Nothing's stopping me at the moment, but one can assume that if it replaces destruction in ranked one will not get to choose a high point and time limit.

[Uncle_Joe]

It's not like I was trying to say conquest was superior to destruction, and the fact that everyone on this forum seems to take that unduly personally is humorous, I was simply pointing out that conquest is no more realistic than destruction.

Realistic or not, Conquest is a lot more fun due to the attacks and counter-attacks it encourages. Victory revolves around controlling the map, not eeking out kill points by hiding and sniping with arty/air/ATGMs.

Neither mode might be 'realistic' but Conquest is far better at encouraging the type(s) of gameplay that I think most people prefer to see.

Well thank you for telling me what I and the other players of this game find fun, I've instantly stopped disliking conquest because you just told me that I should be having fun with it. Thank you. As for the types of gameplay most people prefer to see, I encourage you to find that out for yourself by looking at the multiplayer lobby right now. Unless, of course, these people don't know what's good for them and they need to be shown the righteous path of Conquest?

Maybe you should counter-attack. o:

You don't get it.

Whatever dude. Everywhere you look on this forum you see people complaining about 'camping' and 'arty spamming' etc etc. And in every mention of Ranked, the 'camping' is cited as reasons why people don't like/don't play it.

Personally I think Destruction is currently more played for a few reasons:

1) It's the Default mode and it's one people are most used to from EE

2) Conquest isn't well explained so they don't necessarily understand it

3) People are reluctant to move out of their comfort zones. They know how they can succeed in Destruction (usually involving camping/defensive gameplay) and they are hesitant to 'start over' the learning curve for a completely different style of play.

People are more than welcome to play Destruction and I'm not one of the people who demands it's removal at all. I played it for months. But I just find it odd that people will complain about defensive gameplay and ATGM stagnation and camping while at the same time continuing to play the game mode that wholly encourages and rewards those elements...ie, Destruction.

[M3SS3NG3R]

Nothing's stopping me at the moment, but one can assume that if it replaces destruction in ranked one will not get to choose a high point and time limit.

Well maybe then that's what we should focus our discussion on (ie: what kind of point & time limit setting is best suited for ranked conquest) instead of debating which mode is better. Destruction has been proven to be a terrible mode ill-suited for exciting plays, all the way back in the EE days already.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Whatever dude. Everywhere you look on this forum you see people complaining about 'camping' and 'arty spamming' etc etc. And in every mention of Ranked, the 'camping' is cited as reasons why people don't like/don't play it.

Personally I think Destruction is currently more played for a few reasons:

1) It's the Default mode and it's one people are most used to from EE

2) Conquest isn't well explained so they don't necessarily understand it

3) People are reluctant to move out of their comfort zones. They know how they can succeed in Destruction (usually involving camping/defensive gameplay) and they are hesitant to 'start over' the learning curve for a completely different style of play.

People are more than welcome to play Destruction and I'm not one of the people who demands it's removal at all. I played it for months. But I just find it odd that people will complain about defensive gameplay and ATGM stagnation and camping while at the same time continuing to play the game mode that wholly encourages and rewards those elements...ie, Destruction.

Firstly, "everywhere on this forum" means absolutely nothing. The forum represents the merest handful of players. Hell, I've been playing the series since EE came out and only now have I bothered to use it. The forum population does not represent anything other than the forum population.

Secondly,if there is mass outcry against "camping" and "spamming", these are things which are complained about in almost every single other game, strategy and otherwise, even in games which are considered to be as near to perfect balance as can be humanly achieved. People will complain about the perceived injustice of their loss and will blame it on "broken" game mechanics all the time. This does not necessarily mean that there are not imbalances in the system, or that there are some legitimate criticisms against "camping" and "spamming". I will not deny that. What I will say, however, is that instead of electing to fix the core problems that cause said "camping" and "spamming", people have essentially looked to a solution which does not fix the core problems, but instead basically slaps a fresh coat of paint on the game and hopes it will make those stains go away, which is, in my opinion, both stupid and counter-productive to the long-term viability of the game, the effects of which will only be multiplied should Eugen elect to carry out their patching process in the same method for Red Dragon.

This is what annoys me most about the whole deal. The utter short-sightedness and stupidity of much of the community here, and the fact that Eugen has assented to this group, to the detriment of both my playing experience and the playing experience of others who may not be as vocal about it as I. Almost 100% of my 176 hours of playing Wargame has been playing automatched Destruction, and now the option to do so is being taken away against my will for no particularly good reason other than a group of players has demanded a quick fix to problems which demand anything but. It very frankly sickens me, and, as I have said earlier, has left a terrible taste in my mouth regarding Eugen's variation on post-release support, which has been stellar up until now due to the fact that it added, but did not take away.