How to implement multi in conquest?

[Life]

PLEASE test this on NA2, MAYBE there would be people in it if it was turned to conquest mode. NA SIEGE HAS BEEN DEAD FOR MONTHS. any players that want to siege, already go to EU

[Taser]

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.

I don't care... do it that way.. do it by flag.. Either way works or another alternate method.

Just bring conquest back.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Alaire]

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.

[Daunt_Flockula]

Last time I played, I grew tired of the entire conquest thing soon enough. I just don't think it can be a good replacement for regular siege. But whatever. Looks like there is demand for it. So, no raging or hating from me.

Just want to note one thing though: I can't think of any sophisticated multi system, being only a player that is clueless about that stuff. Yet I think conquest could only work with a DTV-like rewarding system.

[Jona]

If time has to be spent developing a new way for the multi system to work, would it really be so bad to spend some time developing a different multi system? I.e. you get a flat rate of xp per kill (or per damage inflicted), perhaps with a bonus for proximity to flag? Then attackers can get a xp bonus for standing within the radius of the flag during a flag cap.

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. That should be relatively easy to code from a dev's perspective I would imagine, seeing how something very similar exists for strat.

[Kafein]

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.

The "incentive for winning" is equivalent to how much people hate losing and their tendency to GTX when they lose multi. Especially considering the poor team balance. Currently, the influence of victory/loss over xp and gold is much too strong. While personal rewards are almost nonexistent even though those are fair by definition and team rewards such as multi are unfair by definition.

[Joseph Porta]

http://forum.melee.org/suggestions-corner/conquest-61012/msg1004240/#new

[Joseph Porta]

Fact is with such long rounds conquest will never be rewarding with the current multi per round system, itll be the safehaven of leechers and sorts.

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.

[Mr.K.]

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.

It has the potential of combining the best aspects of both Battle and Siege if done right and that's up to the map makers. It's the most played game mode in all FPS games and works by far the best in teamplay orientated games like BF2:PR. It would allow the map makers to make maps that have a few different ways of attacking an objective which would bring in tactics in a way we see neither on battle or siege. On Battle the best "tactic" is to follow the biggest gank squad and have a few agiwhores and cavalry to kill range behind the lines. On Siege the regular attack "strategy" is to suicide rush until flag goes down or time runs out. Combining open ground to good-but-not-too-good defensive positions would make the game play much more dynamic where the ranged or cavalry stacking would be beneficial in one setting, but less so on the next flag.

As to the actual topic, I would suggest something similar to what Strategus has, so base XP and then small bonuses for the whole team when you kill stuff and maybe some individual bonuses to the best players. The XP should ofc be in line with that of EU1 and current EU2.

[Fips]

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.

[Kafein]

But how to set those boni AND sanctions (Because if the team sucks you should lose XP down to the equivalent of x1)?

Bonus and sanctions are meaningless words. The rewards are higher if your team wins, that's all. My point is that the difference between winning and losing in the current x1 - x5 multi system is much, much too big.

There are problems with giving xp based on time, however that system is not that much worse than the old kill radius xp so let's say we keep it. The way multi should work is by winning a set amount of xp and gold per time unit, and receiving a multiplier on that amount depending on whether you won or lost. So, the multiplier would apply to the round you just played, not the next one. And multipliers also would not carry between rounds.

It's basically the same as the old xp and gold system except based on time and not on kills. The old system accumulated xp and gave you x2 the amount you were supposed to gain when your team won, else x1. This worked fine.

The current system encourages delaying rounds when you have high multi, which is horrible metagaming. Doing as suggested here would remove that problem. It would also make the reward for winning much more immediate and reduce the pressure on the length of play sessions ("I can't pee I have x5").

[Joseph Porta]

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.

As I posted in the suggestion corner the best way, imho, is to reward the team per flag captured. But that would only reward the attacking team. So I suggest that bases should be able to be re-captured by the defenders, this will prevent this from happening:

On Siege the regular attack "strategy" is to suicide rush until flag goes down or time runs out.

It'll make it a necessity for both the attacking and the defending team to spend their "resources" well, adding alot of depth to the game mode by making teams allocate their forces in both a defending and offensive way.

It could be made so that defenders will still have the slower respawn rate but that re-capping their lost flags is faster then the cap speed of the attackers. Making quick pushes into weakspots in the enemys defence a viable and rewarding strategy.

I think that should be your priority first Fips, making the flag sustem work well.

Xp/kill is gay and will result in a TDM-like game, even when this is not the intention. Objectives should reward the entire team equally, not the no-life-pro individual. siege is about capping the objective, imo.


How it could work

Code: [Select]

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


If flag capping will be rewarded and flag losing will be punished it will result in the teams actually focussing on the objectives, both defending ánd attacking their held objectives and their own objectives.

[Jona]

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.

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.

[Macropus]

Yes, multi sucks, but that's just the way it is and obviously it won't change in the near future

(((((((((((((((

[Sniger]

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.

people should try to win because, win. not because multi. its a FPS game.

IMO.