All this game mode is Ghost capping or brute force zerging. It can only support 200 vs 200 vs 200 fights. 600 people total that will not be on the live game. Thats effectively 3 "96+ vs 96+ fights"(100 vs 100) on the live game that will not be happening at all. The points system favors farming people & defending bases. Also it can be exploited and this game is buggy. This game mode...... is problematic. A Instanced game mode just does not fit PS2 , its artificially feeling & is just not that fun or rewarding as compared to live what so ever. This is going to hurt the population & mess with the player base one way or another. Its being pushed to live even when people generally speaking do not like it & are giving negative feedback aboutt it. __________________________________________________________________________________ The only good things about it is these 2 things: 1) Redeployside is for the most part done & the gameplay is actually good/fun.(Still needs some work & refinement, but its going in the right direction) 2) Vehicles(and transport vehicles for that matter) actually matter! LOGISTICS IS BACK. This game mode(and future game modes) would be really cool as a testing ground for large metagame changes and things like that. A Inbetween of PTS & Live.
The Hex/Lattice System could work, but it needs more connections between the large bases, and it really makes you realize how many small bases shouldn't have spawn rooms/be bases what so ever.
I stopped reading at the player size. When I play Emerald and Connery usually have less than 600 players online in total (often under 100) so this game mode will fracture what is already an unacceptably low playerbase (there are many times where there are 0 battles).
I think that making a seperate player mode was a dumb thing to do. Splitting up the player-base like that? bad idea. Limiting the amount of players that can participate? Bad idea. If they just change the current lattice to Conquest Lattice and let the point-scoring stuff come by during an alert, they already would have improved the meta-game and made people happy with the alert. One problem with the Conquest Lattice, although it could be a problem of a seperate server on PTS, is that currently it's just a ghost-capping mode. Why try to score 300 kills if you can just take a few empty bases instead? Why risk trying to defend it if you can just capture multiple bases? Maybe the adjacency system needs a bit remodeling. Allow all bases in an area to be captured with impunity, but limit the connections between different area's so people still need to move through a few specific bases to get to an area. But once in the area they can spread out anywhere within.
Have the devs stated how often this thing will be going on, ideally? For example, Server Smash takes a good amount of people from live (not nearly 600, but still) and it doesn't negatively affect the server because it happens once a month during the season. If this game mode occurs as often as alerts, it'll crush the player base. But if it's periodic and nuanced, it might not be so bad.
That's exactly my opinion. Current system cannot work because it makes ghost capping much more rewarding than fighting. One could simply ignore those big bases connected by the lattice and focus on those small bases. Small bases cannot be under control because they border up to 7-8 territories, so it's impossible to defend them as they will be contested every 2 freaking minutes. The only way to control the territory is to spread your forces over a very long frontline, meaning that we will have more fights, but they will be rather smaller. We have already seen that in the past, and it was a nightmare. Some players pretended to see a strategy in all of this, but it was just pure chaos. The old adjacency rules are frustrating as they make you feel like you never really conquer something. Some changes I suggest: Conquest time for non-connected bases should be strongly influenced by how much they border the enemy territory (how many hexagons). I.e.: attacking Crimson Bluff Tower for VS should take an awful lot of time compared to Howling Checkpass (see green line vs red line). VS should feel discouraged at attacking Crimson Bluff before they get more adjacency. Conquest reward should depend on how many players are involved in the battle. If it's a ghost cap or if no one is defending, then reward should be minimum.
Splitting the already low playerbase up is a really bad idea. No matter how fun or good conquest mode may be.
Blobbing is most effective strategy in both main game and conquest mode. People in conquest mode are just more objective oriented so they blob a lot more. That is the problem with the game... most effective strategy produces least fun first-person-shooter experience.
I think they need something between live and Conquest mode which is too extreme. The Conquest mode's lattice and adjacency split is a definite improvement over live's situation. Score based is a terrible idea though, as it will favor very game-able tactics. Sheer territory should be the goal, maybe adjust for population to some degree. Nanite costs being halved could create some serious spam, even w/out redeploy. Redeployment being out of the picture could be tweaked just a bit to allow spawning at bases not adjacent to enemy territory). This way players can get closer to front lines but not just pile on a big base to defend it with sheer numerical advantage in the last minute.
I actually did see the strategy, but it does require a minimum playerbase for this to be more than just ghost capping. Maybe this is a good suggestion: use the points system from that thing we had some time ago, where you get a certain amount of points per area, as well as points for capturing, defending and destroying. To prevent random ghost-capping you could give out points for controlling areas. If you capture any area, you get a very low amount of points, if you capture the last base of an entire area you get a ton of points to promote the capture of entire area's, but only if that area was for less than 50% in your facton's control when you capture that last base to prevent people recapturing the same base for that big bounty. So: Control of entire area's (all of Hvar and surrounding for instance) gains you points over time. Capturing the last base of an entire area that was for less than 50% in your control since the last time you had the entire area gives you a ton of points capturing/defending bases gets you a relatively little amount of points. just do this in the live servers! Splitting up the playerbase is complete stupidity. Sounds like an alternative to the old system, where % of surrounding area determined the total capture time. If you only had 10% of the total border it took 10+ minutes, if you captured all the surrounding area it only took a minute or 2. It worked, but was still Ghost-capping vulnerable. It did have it's advantages in preventing Ghost capping if there was too little bordering to the base they tried to cap. Ghost capping is one thing, but having to wait 10 minutes for the cap took it out of them
Should have been done on the Nexus with only 2 factions IMO MAYBE on that new training cont for new players, that way vets would get some enjoyment out of the new continent and it could support MUCH smaller "round sizes" (like 75v75v75 instead of 200v200v200) definitely needs more lattice connections between facilities.
If that's so then why cant this be put on live as a standard? Probably everyone will want to play this mode and the standard one will be ****, where people will just waste their time while waiting to enter.
lol there were hardly even 3 96+ gifts on all of Enerald last night during the prime time alert. This doesn't matter to the devs though because this game mode is designed for the ps4 crowd with the "45 minute" play session goal in mind, not us PC peasants who paid for the development of the ps4 version of the game. We aren't bringing in the money anymore so they could care less if this will negatively effect our dwindling population. Population won't be an issue for the ps4 release.
