Didn't fully read the last few paragraphs yet, but maybe multi just isn't that compatible with the mode. When things become too complex, that's a good indication that it either won't work well or would be difficult. What's wrong with a flat x2 or x3 with extra bonuses based on what you accomplish?
or just change multi system a little. Something simple but motivating, like attackers start on x1 and gained multi for every flag and defenders start on x5 and lose multi for every lost flag. One 30 minute round is enough so map change after. It could be fun then...
You can take conquest into to siege rotation on eu2. So you dont split the guys. Maybe after 2 maps siege you can play 1 map conquest.
I hope conquest will come back. It is a nice mod for crpg and a lot of fun.
What could be done for conquest multiplier would be to make each flag worth one multiplier. Each time an opposing side gained a flag(or successfully captured a point) that side would gain a multiplier(or the equivalent of).
(so if 5 flags, x5 each flag worth x1, 2 flags still is x5, each is worth 2.5x).
Benefits:
Keeps interest on the defense, the defense could automatically start out with a x5.
Gives incentive for defenders to guard all the spots, without the need of time.
Takes out most of the time factor for giving multies.
Cons:
Ugly amounts of experience at certain points in time(i.E. 3 flags) x1.33 per flag. Gets kind of sketchy with many many flags in general.
Stalling once both teams achieve a decent multiplier. --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?) sort of works.
Defense has a possibility of getting more experience than offense? If defends well for long period of time.
Does not necessarily bias any team...(unless everyone on defense is a pro and the offense gets nowhere) --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?)
Conditions: #conditions which could cause people to give up and lose? Could just have automatic switch sides if win on defense.
For carrying over, the max would be remain a x5.
If attackers win, switched to defense, would already start with a x5.
If attackers win, stay on attacker side, keep x5.
Attackers lose, switched to defense, gain a x5.
Attackers lose, stay on attacking, stay at x1.
Defenders win, no switch, would already start with x5.
Defenders win, switch, start with x5.
Defenders lose, would start with x5. #
Defenders lose, switch offense, start with x1.
Valour could happen over a certain time period. If over a 10 minute span of fighting, they did whatever it takes to earn valour, they could get a bonus multiplier regardless of which side they're on adding a x1 as it usually does. After another 10 minutes, if that person did not earn it again, it would revert back to the "normal" multiplier scheme depending on which side the person is on.
I could have miss-typed something, but overall, this seems to me like a viable solution to the problem.
Also, there would be lots of EXP... mainly for defense if they are solid. Tics could still be every minute, similar to battle server.
Thoughts?
Like San said, i think a flat x2 or x3 would be great.
Keep the system as it is, just change the limits. If multi can only vary between e.g. x2 and x3, long rounds are not a problem.
By the way, this simple modification would hugely improve the reward system with any game mode.
Keep the system as it is, just change the limits. If multi can only vary between e.g. x2 and x3, long rounds are not a problem.
By the way, this simple modification would hugely improve the reward system with any game mode.
Something to think about: How much incentive would there be to win if only x2 or x3 throughout the whole time?
I didn't see else wrong about that(maybe looking at it in an incorrect way). But just an initial concern if we're thinking about trying to give incentives for conquering flags.
Its a shitty gamemode tailored for a far too big playerbase, which we dont have, dont get me wrong its fun and all but not in the long run, imo.
But how to set those boni AND sanctions (Because if the team sucks you should lose XP down to the equivalent of x1)?
But how to set those boni AND sanctions (Because if the team sucks you should lose XP down to the equivalent of x1)?
When you get xp by killing enemies, it comes down to creating a whole new XP system for all the modes, which probably won't happen very soon.
On Siege the regular attack "strategy" is to suicide rush until flag goes down or time runs out.
Attackers cap flag #1 [cap takes 15 seconds] - gain +1x defenders lose 0x
Attackers cap flag batch #1 [three flags] - gain +0.5x [on top of the three previous +1x's] defenders lose -1x
Defenders cap flag #1 back [cap takes 10 seconds] - gain +0.5x attackers lose 0.5x
Yes, multi sucks, but that's just the way it is and obviously it won't change in the near future(((((((((((((((
no multi. fixed xp/gold income for everyone with perhaps a one-time xp and/or gold bonus for winners (of map) as a price or reward.Leecher paradise. :D
people should try to win because, win. not because multi. its a FPS game.
IMO.
Flag capping giving a bonus could work, but not the way conquest is currently set up with the attacker-defender dynamic. Whenever you see a conquest game mode in any other game, BOTH sides are attacking and BOTH sides are defending. Each team starts with maybe 2 spawn points, and then in the middle are 2 neutral ones to fight over. This way each side goes on the offensive at the start to grab those neutral flags, which would in turn not only give you the advantage in the game, but also provide your team with more xp (ideally). I don't see why you can't gain xp for each flag your team owns. Each team starts with 2 flags, so that is an x2. Once they each capture one of the middle 2 neutral flags they are each on an x3. This artificially can make an x3 the average tick, which would be pretty good imo. The form there if one side gets the upper hand they capture another spawn point and then it is x4 vs. x2. Once they keep pushing and get to the other teams main base, they can get an x5 going against the losing team's x1. Once they cap the last remaining flag, round ends. Or perhaps there should only be 1 neutral flag in the center so that you must win a round to get an x5.Yea why exaclty we have to divide attackers and defenders ?
In most other games conquest mode provides each side with a set number of troops, and if one side has less spawns than the other, they are penalized by losing a certain number of troops per minute automatically, or something like that. In crpg conquest we can penalize the losing side while rewarding the winning side by simply changing the xp/gold income of each side. And the best thing about conquest modes is that usually spawn points go back and forth all the time... if your entire team is very aggressive you may push forwards and take all the enemy's spawns, but you leave you rear flags ripe for the picking. Countless conquest matches result in a starting-side swap due to one team being overly aggressive and the other side countering that with some ninja tactics. The reason crpg conquest was pretty dull when it was first implemented is that one side and only one side was attacking/defending. The worst thing about conquest mode in any other game is when one side just camps their bases and you fight a war of attrition. That is what crpg's version of conquest is ultimately forcing, and it's not something that should be encourages. Each player has their own style, some prefer to be aggressive and attack, others might be more defensive and want to hold onto what they have. Allowing that in conquest is what we need. Forcing a player to play defensively or aggressively for an entire 30 minutes straight can be completely unbearable if it is not their style of play. Currently in the battle server, everyone picks their own path to victory... this is what we need for conquest. It can very well unite the siege and battle servers so that this shrinking community can still pull off 50v50 (if not more) fights every now and again.
Leecher paradise. :D
no multi. fixed xp/gold income for everyone with perhaps a one-time xp and/or gold bonus for winners (of map) as a price or reward.A bonus for winning map is as much incentive to fight as round multi bonus, but the current upkeep, gold and xp system is pretty horrendous, and I'd welcome near any change now, and having it change from round to round with this poor team balance is not particularly exciting. I miss when teams were fixed and weren't remixed after each round in a usually futile attempt at balance, when a losing team could get its act together to win on its own (still happens occasionally), and you knew the team you were on were your team also next round. Or maybe that would make it even more boring, I don't know.
people should try to win because, win. not because multi. its a FPS game.
IMO.
2. Change the multi systemNo need to code multi for conquest! We will get a new xp gain system soon! :)
Yes, the multi system is silly. I have no trouble admitting that :]
It makes you stop playing when you drop to x1, and it forces you to continue playing when you have x5.
Therefore, we'll change the system to something that rewards personal skill and risk more. It will be, among other factors, proximity based, as we had in the early versions of cRPG. It will definately not be purely kill based, we don't want to reward fraghunters over teamplayers. It will also not reward proximity leechers. You can expect this change soon.
Bump, gieb ideas!
Haven't read the whole thread, sorry if something like this has been suggested.
For lack of a better way of providing the example, why not make the system something like Arathi Basin in WoW, where each team gains reward based on the number of flags they control each tick. Gives the defenders incentive to launch counterattacks rather than just camping it up.
Defenders start with x5, attackers start with x1, if attackers take a flag they go x2 and defence drops to x4, etc.
Reset multi for everyone to this level at the start of each round.
Or perhaps something similar to strat could happen where every 5 minutes or so you get one tick, where this tick is: your score * some constant. So instead of it being based on the price of gear you burned, it is based on how much score you accumulated in the last round.
One word Strat. Implement strat ticks for xp (payment at rounds end).
Would you people stop. I already solved it. Case closed. Equation equated. Boom goes the dynamite.
So is the conquest functionality carved in stone yet or is it still open for discussion?
Also, since conquest is meant to work in phases to conquer different layers stept by step, wouldnt it be possible to let a teambalance kick in after each layer?
As long as conquest is based on a stept by step layer system Multi could simply be awarded for each completed layer as already was proposed. For Attackers: +2 Multi if they complete all layers, +1 if they complete at least 2/3 of all layers, and lose Multi if they cant take any layer. For defenders: the would get +2 if Attackers cant complete any layer, +1 if they have still 2/3 of layers, lose Multi if Attackers won all.
x5 for winner and x 3 for rest
- 1 for flag that you lost and and + 1 for ataker hat took that flag
that game mode is last thig that may bring me back to crpg
so plz add it
What could be done for conquest multiplier would be to make each flag worth one multiplier. Each time an opposing side gained a flag(or successfully captured a point) that side would gain a multiplier(or the equivalent of).
(so if 5 flags, x5 each flag worth x1, 2 flags still is x5, each is worth 2.5x).
To continue with this, maybe defenders start with a high multi and their current multi is affected by the number of flags they hold, when they hold 100% of flags, x5, 80% x4, 60% x3 and so on, and then attackers get multi's for get a multi for the number of flags they hold as well, if they now control 20% of flags, they get a x2 and so on until the round ends.
So basically your multi is based off the percentage of the map you hold. Also you can have it so the attackers become defenders at the round end.
Alternatively, you could just forget about attackers and defenders, and have both teams as attackers, vying for control of a neutral town/port/field/whatever, so each team starts with one flag on x1, and have a number of flags between them unowned by either team at the start, each worth +1 multi.
huh. I was actually thinking of doing a map or two like this.
This is how every single conquest map should be made. The attacker-defender dichotomy doesn't work in conquest as it does in siege. Notice every other game out there, star wars battlefront, all the battlefields, some really shitty game I had on xbox, they all have the same setup for conquest mode. Each team starts with 1 or 2 bases, then fight over 1,2, maybe 3 neutral bases. And in my opinion this would be the easiest way to implement a multi... number of bases (flags) under your team's control is the multi you get. So if you each start with 1 spawn point, and there are 3 neutral/ That way one team can be on x4 while the other is on x1, and the winning team needs to cap that last flag to get their x5 (which would start next round, assuming next round is a regular siege map). The only area this doesn't really work is if it goes from conquest map to conquest map one after the other, since you would lose a multi after each and every round... which no one likes.
Simple really. Just don't reset the multi when you start another conquest map. Per team, for every base taken, +1 to multiplier with a max of 5, and for every base lost, -1 to multiplier with a minimum of 1. So when the new round/map starts, if you have a x5 and you take a base, you still have x5, but if you lose a base, you get x4.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but idk... seems kinda cheap since you could have the enemy team get all 3 neutral zones (you technically wouldn't have lost anything) and then still be on an x5 with only 1 base. But I guess like anything in crpg, it's not perfect.
The only downside I see to this (besides basically having a x2 all the time....is this a downside?) is that there is no real reward for winning besides the feeling of domination! :twisted:
(click to show/hide)
The only downside I see to this (besides basically having a x2 all the time....is this a downside?) is that there is no real reward for winning besides the feeling of domination! :twisted:
Not sure how much you have played sparv, but at the moment the main problem with conquest (other than the lack of multis for 30 mins) is that defense pretty much has 5 second respawns. Since they can spawn at any flag, including the one defense is currently capturing (for the first half of the capture anyways) they can get to the flag within 10 seconds. Even on low pop it feels like you have to fight through an infinite number of defenders to get any of the last spawn points. Whether this would be better or worse with high pop I can't say... but right now having to kill every single defender 4-5 times to cap a flag is ridiculous. Couple that with 30 mins of an x1, only to be told that teams are unfair at the end since half of the attacking team GTX, and gg.
So yeah, I would rather not have auto x5 for defense, cuz it is very easy to be defense right now... they could never lose a base if smart enough. And when defending an x5, players tend to play smarter than those on x1s, which would be the attackers.
most fighting in conquest (i.e. 2/3rds of the round time, assuming defender respawn timers stay extremely low) will occur when each side has 2-3 flags in there control, so most people would be on a x2 or x3 for that time.
I've got it!
-Cap points A, B, C, D, E.
-Team 1 starts at A, team 2 at E, and try to control other flags.
-15 Minute rounds, ticks every minute.
-1x for each flag you hold (up to a maximum of 4, since 5 would end the round)
BUT
If your team manages to capture all the points to end the round, they get a lump sum of "remaining ticks" XP at 5x. (eg 4 minutes left on the clock when you capture = 4 ticks worth of XP at 5x multiplier, 8 minutes = 8 ticks at x5 etc.)
While teams can just turtle up and defend A, B, C, D with their 4x, there's a pretty big incentive to go all out for E (and to capture it as quickly as possible).
One: respawn timers and locations need a adjustment, I completely agree.
Two: If your theory about people playing smarter on a x5 than on a x1 was true we would see such in battle and standard siege. I have never witnessed that myself, especially in siege (keeping in mind more than 50% of my total earned xp has been from siege). If a team was non-pub and organized I think your theory would be very accurate, but as it is I have very rarely seen anyone try and communicate tactics to a team (when they do they tend to be ignored).
Also:
While you were sitting afk in attacker spawn for an hour and half last night, I was playing the whole time, and I did not go through a single map where the attackers did not capture at least 2 flags. The first 2 or easy, then most of the round occurs fighting over the rest, hence: