cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Smoothrich on September 02, 2012, 10:05:38 am
Title: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on September 02, 2012, 10:05:38 am
TLDR:Combine Strategus ticket and spawn system with Siege flags and make it into a Conquest/Domination mode like in Battlefield where the team to not run out of tickets first, with deaths and holding less ground draining tickets, wins. Use a limited amount of very high quality maps instead of 100+ on battle or siege. Put the objectives over different terrain so there are forts and cover that need an infantry push, or more open/hilly areas that require support by cav and ranged to capture. Spawn points rotate with territory captured. Ultimately create a gamemode that promotes teamwork and objective gameplay so classes perform their roles instead of hunting for kills and preserving their life.
My thought process:
A whine thread about battle servers being crap got me thinking about whats good and bad about cRPG, all the game types, and all the effort the dev team put into Strategus development. I'm starting to see a big gap in the potential of cRPG gameplay between what we are now so used to in Battle and Siege, compared to the innovation the dev team is capable of with things like Rageball and Strategus. I wrote a few posts and I am basically just going to copy them here but I wanted to describe how I see a "conquest" type gamemode for cRPG that people are starting to wish for, accomplished by drawing from the best of all the modes available in cRPG for an experience that sounds, at least to me, like it would be the best thing to happen to cRPG.
A fully realized conquest/domination type game mode, that is fast, functional, rewards infantry play and encourages even pubbies to do teamwork, and has really good maps.. not 110 shit generic maps like battle, just 5-6 GOOD maps designed for the mode, even only 2-3 to start..
Would be the best thing for this game in the past year, would be tremendously more entertaining then any strat gimmicks, and could be a flagship gametype for a future MELEEGAMING.COM entry into the donkeycrew's game catalogue.
I wouldn't want to see a single respawn either. Just ape Battlefield's conquest a lot. Teams get tickets and losing ground or lives ticks them away. What's so shitty about battle as an infantry player is you can man up and charge to take ground that is being contested then just die to pikes, a cav couch, headshot, or whatever. If you want to get points stay alive and not die to ranged or cav instantly you need to honestly play like a pussy more often then not, even if being an over aggressive dude can have moments of hilarity/great success too.
The metagame I always honed in my mind when I was a strat commander, most of which never really work that well because even strat just is glorified team death match.. is the idea of map control. Occuping territory with infantry. Using ranged to facilitate movement of infantry players. Cav threaten the routes infantry must take to get from points a-b-c or can be a mobile force like jeeps in battlefield to threaten rear spawns. Strat NEVER plays like this though. Its boring. Its just TDM, regardless of map or setting.
Just making really interesting maps for this mode, with you know A B C points, and spawns turn to these points if you control them and maybe a few others around it that you set like Strat battles. Maybe mini castles around the points and stuff like that. You could also use the reworked town maps for the big Strat battles that I only got to play a couple times ever, and some of the towns that i saw the UIF take are too great of maps to be wasted in Strategus.
I imagine a few flags like in Siege across the map, on places like top of hills or in the middle of ruins or keeps.. just places that are fun to fight on. Like the map Field by the River, probably the best native map. People naturally gravitate towards the set of ruins on one side of the river. Places of interest like this would have the Siege flags on them, and capping it will reduce a gradual drain of tickets on top of the drain you get from deaths. So like a Strat battle, but with more fluidity and another layer of depth in a give and take of land, instead of solely being about grinding out a TDM count of lives.
Strat battles have the set spawn system built into them already, so you could just slap a couple of these around the siege flags, and if none selected just randomly select a siege flag that your team owns to be a spawn.
Basically I feel like this mode could be created by using assets that all already exist in cRPG. You guys have created some awesome gameplay possiblities in Strategus, that the community often look forward to instead of mindless siege or battle server gameplay, and you know how often people bitch about maps and cav and it being unfair and everything for pick up and play sessions.
So I think it would be very forward minded for the dev team to consider porting some of the best features of Strat into a more accessible game mode, because Strat battles are rare, are full of bullshit drama and bugs, require effort and scheduling.. but have ultimately some of the most teamwork focused gameplay and inspired design compared to the port of native warband modes that just ape counter-strike and stuff.
You guys tried out that Stronghold or whatever mode a while ago that I think was basically too confusing and not focused enough on what I think all of us agree is the best part of Warband/cRPG: Charging with a bunch of bros in a shield wall with pikes and whatnot, archers shooting away at each other, fighting over concise objectives. Moments of gameplay where you feel like two armies fighting for something. Not having to run and chase the last few alive archers across hilly generic map village map #3 for the last 2 minutes of a round, every other round. Or being couched at spawn and sitting out for 6 minutes.
Siege gives you a basic objective and frees up the stress from a single life, kiting and cav, and keeps up a sustained level of intensity that is very fun to play for short gaming sessions. This is why "bads" go on siege: casual type players, who this mod honestly drive away in flocks, probably like this kind of gaming much better instead of the counter-strike ONE LIFE MAD CAV OPEN FIELDS GOOD LUCK BRO mode. But Siege is full of shit maps, cav can't do anything, it just feels half assed.
Now if you can get that kind of objective based, fun, fast paced Siege gameplay on maps that represent the most balanced and fun experiences in Strat or Battle servers, you'd have something really great. Some of those reworked town maps that we only got to see at the end of Strat 3.0 when UIF were taking them.. those were some amazing maps! And would be perfect for a game type like this, instead of only getting to play them 3 times a year.
That's a lot of damned words I know but I combined my posts so people could have a place to talk about a game type like this instead of being buried in shit threads of people simply saying cav is OP. I dunno, seems like it would be pretty fun to me!
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Taser on September 02, 2012, 10:13:08 am
Already +1'd your statement in that thread but when I said all my goddamn pluses, I meant it.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: HUtH on September 02, 2012, 12:47:54 pm
why all these suggestions have to be in such long form, make some summary in points...
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Shpritza on September 02, 2012, 01:39:16 pm
A whine thread about battle servers being crap got me thinking about whats good and bad about cRPG, all the game types, and all the effort the dev team put into Strategus development. I'm starting to see a big gap in the potential of cRPG gameplay between what we are now so used to in Battle and Siege, compared to the innovation the dev team is capable of with things like Rageball and Strategus. I wrote a few posts and I am basically just going to copy them here but I wanted to describe how I see a "conquest" type gamemode for cRPG that people are starting to wish for, accomplished by drawing from the best of all the modes available in cRPG for an experience that sounds, at least to me, like it would be the best thing to happen to cRPG.
A fully realized conquest/domination type game mode, that is fast, functional, rewards infantry play and encourages even pubbies to do teamwork, and has really good maps.. not 110 shit generic maps like battle, just 5-6 GOOD maps designed for the mode, even only 2-3 to start..
Would be the best thing for this game in the past year, would be tremendously more entertaining then any strat gimmicks, and could be a flagship gametype for a future MELEEGAMING.COM entry into the donkeyteam's game catalogue.
I wouldn't want to see a single respawn either. Just ape Battlefield's conquest a lot. Teams get tickets and losing ground or lives ticks them away. What's so shitty about battle as an infantry player is you can man up and charge to take ground that is being contested then just die to pikes, a cav couch, headshot, or whatever. If you want to get points stay alive and not die to ranged or cav instantly you need to honestly play like a pussy more often then not, even if being an over aggressive dude can have moments of hilarity/great success too.
The metagame I always honed in my mind when I was a strat commander, most of which never really work that well because even strat just is glorified team death match.. is the idea of map control. Occuping territory with infantry. Using ranged to facilitate movement of infantry players. Cav threaten the routes infantry must take to get from points a-b-c or can be a mobile force like jeeps in battlefield to threaten rear spawns. Strat NEVER plays like this though. Its boring. Its just TDM, regardless of map or setting.
Just making really interesting maps for this mode, with you know A B C points, and spawns turn to these points if you control them and maybe a few others around it that you set like Strat battles. Maybe mini castles around the points and stuff like that. You could also use the reworked town maps for the big Strat battles that I only got to play a couple times ever, and some of the towns that i saw the UIF take are too great of maps to be wasted in Strategus.
I imagine a few flags like in Siege across the map, on places like top of hills or in the middle of ruins or keeps.. just places that are fun to fight on. Like the map Field by the River, probably the best native map. People naturally gravitate towards the set of ruins on one side of the river. Places of interest like this would have the Siege flags on them, and capping it will reduce a gradual drain of tickets on top of the drain you get from deaths. So like a Strat battle, but with more fluidity and another layer of depth in a give and take of land, instead of solely being about grinding out a TDM count of lives.
Strat battles have the set spawn system built into them already, so you could just slap a couple of these around the siege flags, and if none selected just randomly select a siege flag that your team owns to be a spawn.
Basically I feel like this mode could be created by using assets that all already exist in cRPG. You guys have created some awesome gameplay possiblities in Strategus, that the community often look forward to instead of mindless siege or battle server gameplay, and you know how often people bitch about maps and cav and it being unfair and everything for pick up and play sessions.
So I think it would be very forward minded for the dev team to consider porting some of the best features of Strat into a more accessible game mode, because Strat battles are rare, are full of bullshit drama and bugs, require effort and scheduling.. but have ultimately some of the most teamwork focused gameplay and inspired design compared to the port of native warband modes that just ape counter-strike and stuff.
You guys tried out that Stronghold or whatever mode a while ago that I think was basically too confusing and not focused enough on what I think all of us agree is the best part of Warband/cRPG: Charging with a bunch of bros in a shield wall with pikes and whatnot, archers shooting away at each other, fighting over concise objectives. Moments of gameplay where you feel like two armies fighting for something. Not having to run and chase the last few alive archers across hilly generic map village map #3 for the last 2 minutes of a round, every other round. Or being couched at spawn and sitting out for 6 minutes.
Siege gives you a basic objective and frees up the stress from a single life, kiting and cav, and keeps up a sustained level of intensity that is very fun to play for short gaming sessions. This is why "bads" go on siege: casual type players, who this mod honestly drive away in flocks, probably like this kind of gaming much better instead of the counter-strike ONE LIFE MAD CAV OPEN FIELDS GOOD LUCK BRO mode. But Siege is full of shit maps, cav can't do anything, it just feels half assed.
Now if you can get that kind of objective based, fun, fast paced Siege gameplay on maps that represent the most balanced and fun experiences in Strat or Battle servers, you'd have something really great. Some of those reworked town maps that we only got to see at the end of Strat 3.0 when UIF were taking them.. those were some amazing maps! And would be perfect for a game type like this, instead of only getting to play them 3 times a year.
That's a lot of damned words I know but I combined my posts so people could have a place to talk about a game type like this instead of being buried in shit threads of people simply saying cav is OP. I dunno, seems like it would be pretty fun to me!
why all these suggestions have to be in such long form, make some summary in points...
Because it's intended to be read by people that are probably a bit more mentally capable then you. I'm not writing spark notes for a shakespeare play you didn't understand in tenth grade, its a suggestion to the devs. My summary is the OP right there anyways. CONQUEST MODE.
And this is why this mode would be perfect: you can see the attention spans of a typical cRPG player are shit, so a fast paced objective mode that isn't siege would probably draw them in like a fat kid to the candy store.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Taser on September 02, 2012, 10:38:55 pm
Tl;dr version: Make a conquest mode with strat spawns with battlefield type play (a,b,c points that must be taken to drain other side's tickets) with some small castles thrown in to defend the points as well.
Smooth goes over it more in his post but that's the basic idea. Basically like strat (tickets for each side) with points that can be taken that also drain tickets for the other side other than deaths. So there's room for everyone. Archers/ranged can help defend points that are within a small castle/ruin while infantry can defend/assault them with cav running around doing what they do.
I'll be honest smooth. When I played battlefield I messed around far more than I actually played the game. It was so lulzy to me.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on September 03, 2012, 02:34:24 am
I added a TL:DR to the top to sum up the gametype, because its really quite simple.
My post is pretty damn long but I basically was just putting my thoughts/creativity on paper and hoping some good ideas could be taken from it, and express and address reasons I believe new players are scared of the game or its not as popular as it could be.
One of my big points is that Battle mode is just stolen from Native Warband, who stole it from Counter-Strike, who probably stole it from someone else. Its the most popular mode, but it feels very outdated. Rageball and Strategus battles in comparison, feel innovative and unique, and highlight the talent of the dev team.
Siege is pretty popular, and definitely has the most "casual gamers" who probably can't deal with cav and archer spam, like the fast respawns, and a very basic objective. However that mode is pretty half-assed and is ruined with bad maps and a lack of diversity.
Strategus is the most compelling and team work oriented mode, but limited due to the browser-based campaign nature of the game, infrequency of battles scheduling conflicts, bugs, drama, and sometimes feels like TDM.
We have the player classes, the objectives, a handful of really good maps already and what could be motivation for new ones to be made, for this game mode. A gamemode based on assaulting small, defensible areas littered with forts and cover, then holding it from the counter attack. You aren't punished if you die. A Strength build would be great in a chokepoint or right on a flag, but a flag in a more open area that can be covered by ranged, cav, or fast infantry, will make STR truly look weak and limited. Rounds could be scaled to be 15 minutes or so, with ticks of XP, something tied to points, and maybe a big bonus at the end if you win.
What motivated me the most to type all that up is its true that the classes really aren't that imbalanced, but people are often put into retarded situations like a shieldless infantry on an open plain surrounded by ranged or cav, or two stupid ugly blobs of of players crashing into each other and the bigger blob wins, due to maps and battle mode rules
Teamwork in cRPG/Warband is some of the best in anything I've played, but when the only objective you feel you are accomplishing is griefing yourself by chasing a kiting archer that you are required to eliminate or hide from near the end of rounds to actually win, it just feels dumb, boring, and often rage-inducing. Siege is seen as an alternative but it doesn't get that teamwork and class coordination that some of my most exciting Strategus battles have seen. Strategus is great but battles are rare, the economy, scheduling and clan zerging often reduce skill from the equation of outcome, you don't get to use your own gear, and a whole ton of other problems.
One game mode would, if done correctly, fix 99 percent of the complaints people have about this game and make it stand out way above Native multiplayer, any other Warband mod, and honestly most full-priced retail games that try to create a similar experience, but with guns and jeeps. And we all know that internet swords and horses are better any day.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Aleta on September 03, 2012, 07:57:01 am
This is an incredibly good idea, however it may be hard to code and make work properly. (if it's easy to implement, wouldn't it have been made several years ago?)
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Tears of Destiny on September 03, 2012, 08:38:43 am
This sounds like a pretty good idea, my only concern would be how long an average round would be, and how xp/rewards would tie into that, as if the round lengths are long then the traditional multi system would not work too well (As would be expected with this new mode, as a short round would feel awkward).
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on September 03, 2012, 08:43:21 am
This is an incredibly good idea, however it may be hard to code and make work properly. (if it's easy to implement, wouldn't it have been made several years ago?)
I don't doubt it would be pretty hard, and I'm not a programmer so I can't be very useful at all. It just seems to me that everything required to make it work is in the game already. Siege flags, rotating spawns, a ticket system. Really only change is making a team lose tickets if they have also have less siege flags captured then the other instead of only deaths. And having more than 1 siege flag of course.
You would just need to put 3 siege flags on an existing high quality battle map (Field by the River!) and let a player set their spawn like in Strat if they have one of those flags. Throw in the ticket system that is just tweaked from Strat and you have a prototype of the mode to be beta tested.
This sounds like a pretty good idea, my only concern would be how long an average round would be, and how xp/rewards would tie into that, as if the round lengths are long then the traditional multi system would not work too well (As would be expected with this new mode, as a short round would feel awkward).
Average round length could surely be tweaked if it was put into beta testing, but I imagine about 10-20 minutes being ideal, with a constant stream of XP and gold that is the same for both teams, but a big bonus at the end of the round if you played the whole map and/or won or something like that.
Teamwide bonus to xp/gold if you win, based on how many tickets your team has left. Give another bonus for individual strong performances, maybe tie team score and personal points into a formula to give everyone their own personal multiplier at the end of a map.
Most battle server maps go about ~20 minutes or longer, so maybe a little less to make up for the more frequent respawns would be good.
Once "points" or "score" or whatever it is now become more central to xp/gold rewards, a mode like this would compliment point scoring way more then the current ones. Bonus personal points for capturing and defending the Flags so people fight around them, and replacing a round to round multiplier that goes up with just a big wad of extra xp and gold if your team won, based on how strong the victory was. Though the losing team would still need a good amount of rewards too. Maybe even bonus points per minute of having a majority of Flags on a map?
Lots of things could work really, hell Strat just gives you XP based on rate of players being killed and that works great too, it just would need to tie into the objectives and be balanced for 15 minute matches.
Apparently the cRPG team have been thinking about doing away with the multi system entirely anyways, so why not scrap it entirely and start over for this gametype.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on September 03, 2012, 12:01:36 pm
+1 Love the idea of more teamplay and having an objective to push for. Thats a totally different player motivation. Not only having x5 all the time but getting xp for holding objectives and maybe also having xp given for the total kills the team makes. Hmmmmm I wants it
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on September 04, 2012, 06:16:24 am
well
crpg pretty much got the max out of warband atm all this shiny ideas is a crapload of work i guess even if im not a programmar,im pretty sure it is. Conquest mode was always wanted but never done dunno why.
The best and easiest Thing Dev Team could do for us is too create MAPS. There r just a coupel of maps in siege and Battel that really good. Good in matters of Oppurtunitys they give all Classes ,so that everyone can play his Part U know when u play Field on the River for Exampel , everything fits.Every1 know this map every1 know what he got too do. Cav got they playground(Role),Inf battel is intense and Range play they Role as Support. U know what i mean if u played this Map over 9000 Times..... Most Maps suck because they r unbalanced cuz they favor 1 of the 3 main classes we got.. and thats why Teambalance often suckz too.
This Topic seems too die out 1 of the most important Things of a FPS Game MAPS!!!!!
Conquest Mode was suggested since 2010 +1 for CONQUEST MODE
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Micah on September 04, 2012, 12:54:13 pm
+1 I really love that idea =) I also love the battle mode very much also tho, even as flawed as it possibly is ... its the most ancient, basic and open mode , "go and kill the enemy team" ... I'd miss it if it was gone...
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 04, 2012, 04:36:02 pm
I think it's a great idea. I don't know if I or someone else has suggested something similar, but I know I've talked about it before. I think what I suggested was just to make the Siege game mode, into a strategus type of game mode instead (for sieges). Both sides get X amount of ticks, and whichever side runs out first, loses.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Sandersson Jankins on September 04, 2012, 06:26:51 pm
Fund this shit, holy hot damn!
10/10 would play all day erry day.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on September 04, 2012, 09:35:22 pm
I think it's a great idea. I don't know if I or someone else has suggested something similar, but I know I've talked about it before. I think what I suggested was just to make the Siege game mode, into a strategus type of game mode instead (for sieges). Both sides get X amount of ticks, and whichever side runs out first, loses.
People always want to see more modes in cRPG, to keep it fresh. Conquest type modes are very popular in teamwork games, and are frequently suggested, and I've read lots of good ideas by other players. You in particular always post about how the classes are mostly balanced and have their roles, but the servers have no proper teamwork so it falls apart fast. That's why a mode that encouraged and rewarded classes filling their niches on a battlefield would probably just make it a better game.
Something that I always remember from reading WW2 soldier's memoirs is just how expendable the rifleman was treated. In cRPG, the melee infantry are usually the riflemen, there to throw themselves at each other, all while being torn apart by ranged and cavalry support, to fight over ground for the greater good of the team. Nowadays, there is no greater good than points, and you don't get points by actually taking that god damn hill full of archers away from the enemy team. You get shot from 4 different directions, then die hopeless and alone, hoping some str builds and lance cav left alive can track down 5-10 kiting ranged or horse xbows for a multi that sometimes doesn't even feel worth the bother. This is very typical Battle server gameplay, and it probably turns many new players away, and burns veteran players out faster than need be.
Battle and Siege can be plenty fun, but that is more due to the really solid Warband game mechanics then the modes themselves. One is a counter-strike clone, the other is.. well, Siege. I just see a lot of wasted potential in all the new things the devs have done, such as Strategus, which could be integrated with existing elements of the other modes to create something that would really play to this game's strengths and be a real reason to play it over Native or any other mod.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: owens on September 05, 2012, 01:03:34 am
This is a good idea because of the unrewarding battle game play cRPG AUS has died time and time again.(More recently everyone's including my own accounts have failed and i cant even join a server).
Anyway the suggestion part. I am willing to try my hand at map making and will design for you 1 special map. The fact is that we have only 3 or 4 balanced maps field by the river(very unsymmetrical), ruins(too broad), battle on ice(ruined by tree hitboxes) and arena (too small). Maybe we should modify these original maps?
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Joseph Porta on September 05, 2012, 01:55:56 am
Hmm, would upkeep be like siege? Every round no matter how long it takes?
Anyways, I am hoping something like this will be introduced, it sounds hella fun!
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on September 08, 2012, 05:08:22 am
bump
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Nessaj on September 09, 2012, 03:10:01 am
Smoothrich 2012
One of the main gripes of Conquest/Domination modes is that when maps are big some areas get abandoned fast, where-as then 1-3 people run around and fight for actual spots while everyone else is just clashing at whatever two spawning points are closest to each other.
Map design matters tremendously, because no matter what, even if there's tickets, a lot of people will still just spawn and head towards where ever the main clash is.
Some sort of encouragement is needed, if not in map design then in the mode/game design, something that will have people both defending and attacking for a purpose beyond simply ticket loss and ultimately round loss.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Spa_geh_tea on September 11, 2012, 06:33:43 pm
^ too easy, just make three flags. One at spawn, one in the middlish, and one at enemy spawn. You have to own the flag to capture the next. Aka.....assault and defend. Cept both sides are assaulting/defending.
There ya go, everyone will fight over the same objective. Taking objectives is achieved by capping and stopping enemy advancement from their spawn. Spawn killing can be removed by making mini "forts" that can only be jumped out of but not into.
Why is siege more awesome than battle:
1) objective is not to Chase archers or xbowmen. 2) respawns.
So, why don't we fix that for battle and remove all the segregated server modes? No more battle and siege.....just battiege....cause it needed a new word for it. (Excludes dtv or rageball)
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on October 11, 2012, 04:53:10 am
Bumping this because of recent IRC discussion about it.
I would really like to see this made, just a prototype using Field by the River. Have 3 siege flags, one at the ruins and two at the default spawns. Give each team a couple hundred tickets, have tickets bleed if you have less siege flags up. Each siege flag you capture becomes a selectable spawn point. If your team has no flags, big bleed in tickets and respawn in a protected area of the map close to your starting spawn. Like those bullshit outside of map spawns in bugged Strategus maps, so you can't get spawn capped. Beta test it and see how people like it.
Instead of nerfing classes and weapons for an outdated, counter-strike rip off single life Battle mode, make a gametype where classes aren't afraid to die, maps get used to their fullest potential, people won't find it necessary to either be high strength/heavy armor or kite endlessly to preserve 1 life, and everyone would have more fun!
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Malaclypse on October 11, 2012, 09:22:19 am
Yes, please.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Joker86 on October 11, 2012, 11:21:23 am
Instead of nerfing classes and weapons for an outdated, counter-strike rip off single life Battle mode, make a gametype where classes aren't afraid to die, maps get used to their fullest potential, people won't find it necessary to either be high strength/heavy armor or kite endlessly to preserve 1 life, and everyone would have more fun!
I agree with your suggestion (it's what I am preaching the board up and down), except for that part.
I think it would be important to still keep the one life every player has. First of all, to keep the "battle" feeling. The second reason is: I do want people to be afraid of dying, it's what makes gameplay look realer and players use their brain.
We already have a shitload of autowalker-Rambo-lemmings, although we only have one life. If you gave them several lifes, they would play even more carelessly. But I think a change in game mode would be the perfect opportunity to give the game a little bit more depth my making it more tactical.
If you rewarded kills less than capturing and protecting flags, and conquering the flags, not killing the enemy would be the objective, I hope people would start to play together around the flags, instead of rushing off to kill some random shit. There would't be a lot of kiting any more, because horse archers or archers wouldn't get chased any more. Why should they? It's not the objective any more to kill them.
Make it a one-spawn-mode, I hope this would finally lead to players fighting in (loose) "formation". Funny enough, such a change would also shift class balance. :wink:
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on October 15, 2012, 07:08:40 pm
bamp
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Gimest on October 15, 2012, 10:11:03 pm
Yes please.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Bobthehero on October 15, 2012, 10:12:51 pm
Read title, raped the + button, want want want.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: LordBerenger on October 15, 2012, 10:14:33 pm
Respawning should be on imo. Not like Battle. But yeah completely supporting this.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: HarunYahya on October 15, 2012, 10:26:31 pm
This , fuck Obama and Romney this man is the guy you murrikans look for ! Why do you have 2 parties anyway ? You need 3 parties , 3 opinions , 3rd one should be LLJK ! HATERS GONNA HATE MOFOS.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Digglez on October 16, 2012, 07:48:08 am
you've been playing mod for 2 years and just had this epiphany now? What are you, fuc en retahed?
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: TurmoilTom on November 09, 2012, 10:56:14 pm
Guess what? I'm bumping this.
Bitches.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Visconti on November 09, 2012, 11:04:43 pm
+1, best thing that could happen to cRPG atm.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on November 10, 2012, 07:38:49 am
we need more lobbying/bribery/threats/torture to get someone to work on a conquest mode, to unite the cRPG community once again in a non outdated shit counter-strike clone mode with objectives and teamwork for all classes. someone fly me to austria and i will hook chadz's nipples up to a car battery until the mode is made.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: OpenPalm on November 10, 2012, 08:40:22 am
+1 awesome
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: MURDERTRON on November 11, 2012, 12:54:03 am
Would be nice to see an interesting mode other than Battle. However, if you did Domination style flags, you'd be giving an advantage to ranged. Once a flag is captured, they would just camp it. Cavalry is awful while still and an easy target. Meanwhile, anyone without a shield will be near useless for capturing flags. Pikes would also keep a game of keep away on the flags, it would be rough.
What about a team death match mode? You could have tickets and each death is penalized with a spawn timer more heavily than the round itself. That way you can still have dynamic spawns, where you have to spawn within a certain proximity to friendlies and outside of a certain proximity to enemies.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on November 11, 2012, 01:43:01 am
Would be nice to see an interesting mode other than Battle. However, if you did Domination style flags, you'd be giving an advantage to ranged. Once a flag is captured, they would just camp it. Cavalry is awful while still and an easy target. Meanwhile, anyone without a shield will be near useless for capturing flags. Pikes would also keep a game of keep away on the flags, it would be rough.
this is what literally strat battle (mostly village sieges) is and people figure out what to do pretty easily. loose formations, juking, tight shield wall with 2handers/poles behind them, flanking, pincers, etc. its really fun and its what ranged and infantry should be used for. instead on battle archers camp on top of a hill with no recourse and if anyone gets close they die in 1-3 arrows and sit out the rest of the round.
what you are saying would be flaws is the entire point of the mode and would be awesome. ranged actually have places they should be defending together? infantry have to survive a charge into territory but then can hold it, instead of being kited across the rest of the map to kill the archer? cav aren't OP gods of every portion of the map at all times, that might even.. have to dismount? sounds great 2 me
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Robert on November 11, 2012, 12:45:41 pm
yes
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Riddaren on November 11, 2012, 05:35:39 pm
This has been suggested many times before. If it was tehnically possible I believe it would have been implemented already.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Sarpton on November 11, 2012, 07:12:15 pm
Would be super nice if chadz or CMP could pop in and say if it's possible or not. Or some sort of feed back.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Riddaren on November 12, 2012, 06:15:47 pm
Would be super nice if chadz or CMP could pop in and say if it's possible or not. Or some sort of feed back.
Indeed (bump).
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Wrangham on November 13, 2012, 04:14:08 am
Why not just make Master of the Field trigger 60 seconds into each round? It seems like it would be a very simple change that would turn battle into a conquest mode.
Anyways OP has a great idea if it can be implemented. Would +1 if I could.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Malaclypse on November 13, 2012, 04:22:27 am
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on November 14, 2012, 04:24:30 am
i vote for make an petittion for conquest mode
whos with me?
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Sarpton on November 18, 2012, 11:47:45 am
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Smoothrich on November 21, 2012, 12:53:29 pm
I remember chadz was talking about adding a commander to Strat battles that would be a mobile spawn point. That would be perfect for Conquest! Could actually use the battalion system, and whoever is marked as the flag carrier (without the obnoxious flag on them) could be a mobile spawn point, rewarding groups of agi players flanking far away flags or something like that.
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Sarpton on November 21, 2012, 03:23:24 pm
I remember chadz was talking about adding a commander to Strat battles that would be a mobile spawn point. That would be perfect for Conquest! Could actually use the battalion system, and whoever is marked as the flag carrier (without the obnoxious flag on them) could be a mobile spawn point, rewarding groups of agi players flanking far away flags or something like that.
So much this!
Title: Re: Conquest Gametype: Combine Strategus Siege and Battle into 1 Bad Assed Mode
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on November 22, 2012, 02:28:42 pm
Man I would hire a programmer by myself and pay him whatever he wants if we could some kind of conquest mode... chadz PLEASE DO IT FOR FREE!!