I know everyone hates the Conquest game mode but hear me out… Double each team’s ticket count.
From what I understand, the main issue with Conquest is the lack of XP (It’s my primary issue at least…) Nothing like getting Conquest as your first 3 matches when you get an XP boost… right?
I feel like the main reason for the lack of XP is due to the fact that the games last like 5 minutes. There is no time to get crazy kill counts or defend/attack a point to rack up obj kills. By comparison, in a good Invasion match, I can usually get between 100-200 kills. In a good Conquest match, I can get maybe 40? The XP received will be obviously reflected by that. Everyone is split up between 3 points, so there often not enough people to fight during that short 5min.
I think a few benefits will come from longer Conquest matches:
More time to setup and fortify points… Trenches, bags, MGs, etc
More time to try and overcome fortified and heavily defended points. Would even give a losing team a change to try and overcome a triple cap situation.
More time for getting kills and captures, thus more XP
Let me know what everyone thinks… I think the game mode could be a lot more fun if we had the time to properly fortify and defend points. Instead of the 5 minute waste of time that we get now.
I think the major cause of this problem is the unbalanced matchmaking: The game makes no effort even to ensure the same number is players on each team, let alone balance the teams by skill or campaign level.
It’s problem on all mission types, but it’s most pronounced on conquest because it’s a more chaotic free-for-all style match.
If they can fix the matchmaking I think conquest will work much better overall.
While I definitely agree it could benefit from giving a chance to fortify the objectives, the major issue with this is that a single Radio operator artillery strike will instantly vaporize any and all fortifications that you attempt to put down. In the event that it is inside, such as Berlin Campaign, it still doesn’t matter because grenades, grenade launchers, and HMGs instantly shatter defenses as well.
There would need to be a complete overhaul on defensive fortifications to make them viable against this kind of bombardment.
That said, longer games won’t really help either. VERY RARELY do I ever see a conquest game neck and neck on score. One team always dominates the other. Just the way that the game mode is setup where everyone is just running everywhere and teams are dividing up rather than pushing a point as a unified force is a problem.
At its core I don’t think Conquest should be part of the “standard” game rotation. I think it should be its own mode separate from all the rest. This way, the players that enjoy Conquest can play it as much as they like, while everyone else can be free of it.
A total mess conquest map is Moscow one don’t remember name, the one with rails in the middle of the map and 3 or 4 barns on point B. Also there is a large road on high ground making this partical Conquest site a total mess. Not to mention B point towards open field side main spawn is a pure unfair position. You mostly get raped by flanking troops and tanks that are shooting towards trenches with not really a spot to shot back or cover due to its design … Some of the map distances need to be made larger, that’s also applies to Invasion. Points between 150 or less meters are a pure joke in terms of gameplay… I don’t know what dumb moron designed and team just applied this as good idea of point design. Talkin mostly about Tunisia and Moscow.
biggest problem with conquest is actually just running all the time and not enough action.
there are only few good conquest maps and they are those that are funneling you towards enemy (that moscow manor is good example). rest are beyond saving.
In my unpopular opinion, conquest is a good mode. This is especially true when you know how to manage your soldiers. I can defend C and B while pushing to A, and switch locations based on what is getting taken.
Now this isnt to say that the mode cant be improved in some way. I think games definitely end too soon, even if one team holds most or all the points for a moderate amount of time, which barely leaves time for the actual battle or the ability to actually mount a comeback.
I can agree with larger territory for zones for various maps.
More zones to capture would be nice as well. (Which means less running between points)
Zones should contribute a bonus to teams that hold it. For example, reduced cooldown for bomber calls, +1 tank or plane slots, reduced cooldown for artillery, resupply zone, etc
Because of the small map imo is easy do something like tanneberg territory who make conquest look like a sort of frontline mode keeping the cap conquest
conquest maps would make ok map foundations for infantry only modes and rifle only side modes that should have been implemented instead of this stupid BR system that is ruining the entire game
they can never fix the balance of the game because people cannot be balanced
you would have to literally implement a full on professional sports structure into this game, a game that is about killing largely bots most of the time, it just doesn’t make any sense
you would need to have elaborate measurement tools to assign rankings to players
and even then people would find a way to game that system
in a lot of ways, one thing I learned in my time in Enlisted was that quitting is actually your only real option to help you manage issues like Balance and crap matches and to help you look for better experiences in the game
and it looks like going forward that will still be the only alleviation to help with the BR nightmare that is coming
I agree.
I’ve played conquest mode 5 times…
It really sucks the way they are designed and I subscribe to what you say.
Personally I don’t give a damn about losing the boosters, if I have to play conquest mode, I’ll leave the game. And not to mention the train mode in Berlin, another game mode disaster.
But tastes are tastes, I suppose.
I thought of another potential Conquest improvement… What if instead of capturing points, it was more like 3+ “King of the Hill” style. Keep the points relatively close to try and mitigate stale moments.
It would work where any soldiers on the point start “capturing” (Maybe "controlling is better here) the point like normal. Stepping off the point (nobody else on) will start to uncap the point back to neutral. This will force people to actually try and defend points where you only really get (or force other team to lose) tickets when you have troops actively on points. Soldiers would also be rewarded with per second XP for continuing to hold the point.
For this to work, the spawn points and even capture points would likely need to be revised on many maps but I think this could be a fun change. Just a thought but the capture points could be laid out more in quad shaped cube in the center of the map. Putting 2 points close to each team. So you have more of a front line for each side.
OR alternatively, scrap the whole idea of multiple points… King of the Hill instead of Conquest.
Train just needs to go away… Ill play through a conquest in its current state, Train is just boring/frustrating, depending on if you are attacking or defending.
That said, I played Berlin Allies so at least when train did come up, there was some degree of challenge as most of the real players were on the other team .
.