You are eluding the point. You said it is an accepted opinion on the forum that battle should be replaced with conquest. When I replied I believe it is rather your own opinion you answered that whenever conquest is mentioned no one is against it. Argument, wtf?
Well, when I only read things like "conquest would be nice" and "yes, it battle mode seems to cause some problems" I assumed it would be pretty accepted. Especially since there was no noticeable amount of "I don't like the conquest mode idea" posts I have stumbled upon. Which in this forums means something. Just go and write in any thread without connection to the topic that you think archers should do more damage or run faster. Or that lances/horses should do more damage, or that horses should have more hitpoints, and see what happens
Battle has quite another appeal for many players that is not served with either TDM/DM or a conquest like mod. It has much to do with the simple and free goal "kill enemy team" combined with no respawning. Though it certainly wore down over the years it has an intensity no respawn or forced goal mode could hope to achieve, IMO.
For example I would like to see a siege mode which is more like current battle, without any respawning. For that we would need extremely perfect siege maps with real big advantage for defenders that would only work with a fix number of players (double attackers or so). So its unlikely but I think it would be much more intense than anything that works with "flags" or similar artificial goals.
Of course these modes have their advantages, too. I like to see a good conquest but it is no replacement for battle. If we have enough players for both kind of modes is another matter, though.
Bloody Nine, I think once again we can agree that we disagree. I guess we reached a point where it's a matter of taste and nothing else. I do like the one life you got in battle, too (just in case there was some misunderstanding: in difference to Smoothrich, who is also lobbying for conquest mode, I am against respawns. Players need to have only one life so that there is actually a thrill in the game with the possibility to die). I just don't like the missing focus of battle. Usually after the first quarter of the round most teams are scattered all over their half of the map. To me it often creates the feeling of many duellants looking for each other in a multi-duel-mode, and I guess it's the attitude of quite a lot players out there. But I think there is more in this game than that, and in addition I think there is no "decision" to be made. You don't have to choose between two different playstyles, you have to choose between going deeper into the game or not. And quite frankly, you don't even have to choose. Nobody can stop you from running away.
I can understand that people enjoy battle mode in its current shape. But I think there is so much more to this game than just hacking and stabbing. And I do have the (I can't deny you could call it "arrogant") opinion, that sometimes you have to force something good upon the people so they can like it. When the potatoe came from America, nobody in Germany liked it. Some people stole the (poisonous) fruits of the potatoe and even died of it, further cementing the bad reputation. The German Emperor found a funny trick and let his soldiers guard the potatoe fields all day long. The peasants became curious why he should have simple vegetables guarded that well and stole some potatoes at night to give them another chance. And they liked them. And now we Germans are sometimes even called "potatoes", for the amount of potatoes we eat.
This example is to show that such things don't only work with children, but also with full grown people. I bet if people gave it a shot, they would discover a lot of nice aspects, and they would see that there is no need to learn a different behaviour, there is only need to learn some new things. I mean, I spent some time thinking about battle mode, upkeep and multiplier system. Really sitting down and thinking about it. I don't think everybody who plays cRPG did that. So how can I know people who refuse my suggestions are at the same state of knowledge and awareness about different aspects of the game? How can I know it's not the old "Something new? Dun' like it!"-attitude people tend to have (me included, but mainly concerning other things. My brother's new PC with Windows 8 is driving me crazy. No start button? Really, Microsoft?)?
That's my point of view. I hope I didn't sound too arrogant, and I definitely don't want to limit somebody or destroy his fun. But it's like with a new dish: people often are sceptic. And perhaps they smell it, and they don't like it. Most dishes taste like they smell, but not all do. All I want people is to try my new dish, and in this case trying means thinking about it properly. And if I notice someone is making a good point like Moncho did (he found a flaw in my system) I do accept it. I am far from perfect or infallible. But if I see that I spend quite some time thinking about a matter, finding the best solution I could, and then people react like "I didn't read everything, but your suggestion is bullshit", how can I take that serious? Some matters ARE highly complicated, and they need some effort and training period, and if I receive such an answer I simply stay stubborn.
Sorry for the long post, but I know you as reasonable and smart guy, so apparently I felt the urge to explain myself to you.
