How to implement multi in conquest?

[Eugen]

First I posted this in wrong thread - now here new idea: now with one flag on attackers side too.

Possibility of recaptureing all flags maybe would lead to massive spreading of teams. Everyone would rush to any available flag in an attempt to (re)capture. It would leash chaos upon conquest. Maybe fun. Maybe total rampage. Maybe sensless.

I like conquest. With good multi system even better. Only thing worrisome is the painful length. Being force-glued to the pc for an hour without break is not so good. Conquest should be resolved in three rounds max (2:0 ends map or 2:1 ends map in case of a tie).

I´d like multi being tied to time. Give Attackers 3 or 4 minutes per flag to gain multi, timer is resetted after each capture and gives +1 Multi for success in time.

Attackers should have a base with a flag in each layer of map. If Defenders are able to rush attackrs base and capture theire flag, they get +1 Multi. The flag of attackers base also should have a timer, so defenders cant abuse theire rush. If defenders took attackers flag, let the flag go slowly down for 3-4 minutes and only then Defenders can try again.

If one layer is won the winning party gets +1 Multi and the losing party loses all Multi.

[Thranduil]

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.

[Jona]

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.

[Thranduil]

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.

[Jona]

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.

[Thranduil]

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.

Yeah, that is the downside. Like you said, resetting would be the simplest solution, but most ppl wouldn't like to lose their x5 for no reason. You just got it and never get to use it that way.

Well what if ..... no.... Well how about ..... no not that either....... I got it! 42.

Okay. How about this? Every map has the two team flags and 3 neutral flags. Each team starts the round with a x2 multi. For every flag captured, the multi increases by 1. When all the flags are captured or the timer ends, the round is over. This way you can hold all the flags but the enemy's flag and still enjoy a x5 in the game mode, and not feel completely cheated out of your multi when the round is over.

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! 

[Jona]

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! 

Precisely. It would just lead to leeching that sweet, sweet multi. No motivation to win. Arguably it would be best to also implement the other key feature to any conquest mode, a set number of tickets for each team, like strat. If your team holds the majority of the bases, then the enemy team's tickets get automatically reduced with time. That way you can't really leech since sooner or later you "automatically" win.

[Sparvico]

Haven't really kept up with the thread, but I think you are over-thinking it a bit fips.

Start each map with defenders at x5 and attackers at x1, every time the defenders lose a base they lose a multi, every time the attackers capture a base they gain a multi. The benefit of this system over a timer based capture system is that 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. Population is the key to conquest, and nothing kills pop like the perception that one will have to spend 20+ minutes on an x1. With a timer based system I feel that most attackers would lose their multi once the defenders are down to a couple flags, then be faced with fighting on a x1 for the rest of the round, or quitting to battle.

The other main problem with conquest mode (specifically in NA) is that we really don't have the pop for it. Right now it's just killing the siege server for the few that still play, and even with a decent multiplier system I really don't see the battle bros becoming fond of it. Many NA people really enjoy one life per round, and alt-tabbing when they die. They want to check ts links, or browse the forums, a game mode that does not allow significant down time in between lives will probably never gain much traction in NA.

[Sniger]

screw multi. screw valour and... SCREW BANNER BALANCE.

no more problems.

but you fail.

[Sharpe]

Easy Way, make each map 2 rounds of 30 minutes. Every one starts out at a x3, if you win you the first time x4, second time x5; if you lose the first time, x2, second time x1. (The multi you had when the map ended, would stay for the next map until you win or lose) Don't know how to address this part.

[Krex]

I like that idea Sharpe,+1

[Jona]

(click to show/hide)

Haven't really kept up with the thread, but I think you are over-thinking it a bit fips.

Start each map with defenders at x5 and attackers at x1, every time the defenders lose a base they lose a multi, every time the attackers capture a base they gain a multi. The benefit of this system over a timer based capture system is that 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. Population is the key to conquest, and nothing kills pop like the perception that one will have to spend 20+ minutes on an x1. With a timer based system I feel that most attackers would lose their multi once the defenders are down to a couple flags, then be faced with fighting on a x1 for the rest of the round, or quitting to battle.

The other main problem with conquest mode (specifically in NA) is that we really don't have the pop for it. Right now it's just killing the siege server for the few that still play, and even with a decent multiplier system I really don't see the battle bros becoming fond of it. Many NA people really enjoy one life per round, and alt-tabbing when they die. They want to check ts links, or browse the forums, a game mode that does not allow significant down time in between lives will probably never gain much traction in NA.

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.

[Johammeth]

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! 

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).

[Sparvico]

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.

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:

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.

[Thranduil]

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).

I do like this idea. Like you said, it gives incentive to capture all the flags as quickly as possible. They only possible negative is small teams abusing this, but I think this is unlikely since we had small teams (8v8) the other night and there was not a single round that anyone dominated and they lasted nearly the full 30 minutes.

Also, IF flags can be recaptured, 30 minutes may not be enough time for anyone to flat out win, but this could potentially add to balancing out the multiplier and may partly depend on map design as well.

Overall, I like this idea too.